Rights come from below: John Locke's exegesis and what it tells us.

Arguing Against the Divine Right of Kings

Anyone whose actually read John Locke's argument against "the divine right of Kings" knows that it was founded on a profound exegesis taken from the bible as well as reason. In those days the notion that there even should be a conflict between reason and biblical study was foreign -- as long as boundaries were respected. What some histories don't show is that John Locke published his book post-humously, that he lived his final days in exile, and that he was taking his life in hand to write that book. Folks like to portray the Glorious revolution as bloodless, but it wasn't.

Rooted in British Resilience

And his exegesis draws more from the long resistance of common folks to oppression in Britain as it does to anything from classical literature. It draws from the protestant movement as much as it does from the revival of "the enlightenment" and that movement owes its birth to common folks long before Martin Luther or Calvin, when the bible was translated into common languages and read by common people and painfully transcribed by scribes so that people could own a copy that would be a family heirloom. The elites of the church discouraged most common folks from reading the bible, but they couldn't completely suppress it anywhere and their ideas were championed by folks such as John Wycliff (1320-1384) who created the movement that eventually evolved into Protestantism;.... And folks like Watt Tyler (died 15 June 1381), who had the presumption to resist the Monarchy, [Peasants Revolt]. That this story is still seminal to modern issues is illuminated by the vast discrepancy between popular and historical accounts and official ones (compare the Wikpedia article on Watt Tyler to the version in www.loyno.edu ). To this day there are people who would build up Richard the II and defame the peasants who revolted -- and are passionate enough about it to continually rewrite Wikipedia articles.

The exegesis of the Peasant Revolt is similar to that of John Locke. The medieval historian Sir Richard Froissart explains the feelings of the peasants:

"The evil-disposed in these districts began to rise, saying, they were too severely oppressed; that at the beginning of the world there were no slaves, and that no one ought to be treated as such, unless he had committed treason against his lord, as Lucifer had done against God; but they had done no such thing, for they were neither angels nor spirits, but men formed after the same likeness with their lords, who treated them as beasts. This they would not longer bear, but had determined to be free, and if they labored or did any other works for their lords, they would be paid for it."

http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1986-7/milone.htm

The Commons Started with Commoners

The author of the article writes:

"The peasants had not formed a revolutionary doctrine, only the ideas of freedom, respect, and fairness in their attempts to support themselves."

But the truth is the notion that peasants are not dogs and are equal to noblemen and other aristocrats is indeed revolutionary. And John Locke's two treatises pick up on the argument. She also notes:

"To them it would have appeared almost as incredible for the animal-people to turn on their masters as it would be for us to conceive our dogs banding together and hunting us down in packs. One dog might prove rebellious but we would never expect all the rebellious dogs to unite with horses and other beasts, as we are their divinely appointed masters."

http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1986-7/milone.htm

Peasant Underground

But the Peasants of Wycliff and Watt read the bible and were quietly the equals of anyone. They shared jokes about the wealthy and expressed them in short poems, which were basically the tweets of the day. Some of which found their way into common literature. John Ball, who was a priest at the peasant revolt is said to have said:

"When Adam delved and Eve span,[a] Who was then the gentleman?[3] From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty" [John_Ball_(priest)]

Rooting Intellectual Arguments in Popular Common Sense

More than a century later John Locke picks up this exegesis in his Two Treatises on Government. Locke's exegesis is powerful because he goes at it from both positive proofs and refutations. His opening comments on the subject directly descend from John Ball. He was arguing against the fallacies of one Sir Robert Filmer, who had passed away before he began writing. I introduces the notions of primogeniture and 'divine right' in his own exegesis beginning in verse §95:

"§95. If God, by his positive grant and revealed declaration, first gave rule and dominion to any man, he that will claim by that title, must have the same positive grant of God for his succession: for if that has not directed the course of its descent and conveyance down to others, nobody can succeed to this title of the first ruler. Children have no right of inheritance to this, and primogeniture can lay no claim to it, unless God, the Author of this constitution, hath so ordained it. Thus we see the pretensions of Saul’s family, who received his crown from the immediate appointment of God, ended with his reign; and David, by the same title that Saul reigned, viz., God’s appointment, succeeded in his throne, to the exclusion of Jonathan, and all pretensions of paternal inheritance: and if Solomon had a right to succeed his father, it must be by some other title than that of primogeniture."

Two Treatises on Government §95.

Filmer as a Strawman for Hobbes

It was simple for John Locke to write his book as a refutation of the vanities of Sir Robert Filmer who was asserting a divine and patrilineal right to succession of English Kings. He was following on the arguments introduced by Wycliff, John Ball, and the common peasantry of England, and adding to them from his knowledge of Greek, Roman and modern historical narrative. The common folks had a vision of liberty that applies to everyone, while the vision of the noble only applies to "everyone" theoretically and under conditions of complete anarchy and "the state of nature". These universal notions of freedom and opportunity were invisible to the nobles, if not seen as a threat to their power and privilege, but not to many of the common people, who rejected the notion that they were mere "dogs." And of course there are shills among the intelligencia who dream of being among the nobility who will [to this day] argue for this. Locke risked his life to argue differently. Some people lump Locke with Hobbes, but they were on opposite sides. Locke however argued with John Filmer because he could refer to his book.

Using Exegesis

And he uses many forms of argumentation, and examples he then comes back to the subject on page 101 verse 161:

“....Saul, the first king God gave the Israelites, was of the tribe of Benjamin. Was the “ancient and prime right of lineal succession re-established” in him? The next was David, the youngest son of Jesse, of the posterity of Judah, Jacob’s third son. Was the “ancient and prime right of lineal succession to paternal government reestablished in him?” or in Solomon, his younger son and successor in the throne? or in Jeroboam over the ten tribes? or in Athaliah, a woman who reigned six years, an utter stranger to the royal blood?”

Two Treatises on Government §161 page 101.

Unraveling Dogma

The bible is not a good source for notions of hereditary nobility outside the creation of a class of slaves to God; the Levites and Cohain and repeated promises in the "haftorah" to the line of David. But reading Samuel, and considering that God first picks Saul, then David, then strips David of the Northern Kingdom, tells us that nobility as defined in scripture is provisional on the person keeping the trust of both God and the people he is supposed to lead. And almost none of them are elder sons and some of them, like King David, started as sheep-herders.

“If the ancient and prime right of lineal succession to paternal government were re-established” in any of these or their posterity, “the ancient and prime right of lineal succession to paternal government” belongs to younger brothers as well as elder, and may be re-established in any man living: for whatever younger brothers, “by ancient and prime right of lineal succession,” may have as well as the elder, that every man living may have a right to by lineal succession, and Sir Robert as well as any other. And so what a brave right of lineal succession to his paternal or regal government our author has re-established, for the securing the rights and inheritance of crowns, where every one may have it, let the world consider.”

Two Treatises on Government §161 page 101.

The Shaky Foundation of Monarchal Exegesis

If nobility is to be established on the Bible, then that is a shaky foundation if anyone actually reads it. But Locke is frying more fish than simple patrilineal authority. He's after the whole notion of hereditary aristocracy, the idea that someone by mere inheritance has the right to rule others or control and exercise great wealth and power unchecked. But that was what Sir Robert Filmer's argument was; that patriarchy and patrilineal succession are established and sanctioned by God. Locke pretty much refutes this by the end of Chapter VII of Book 1.

Drawing on Greek and Roman Sources

But he continues the discussion in book II Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government, Chapter 1. He first discusses Greek and Roman history and how it supports notions of commonwealth and common-weal. He does this argumentation in the context of an argument between the state of humans in a "state of nature" and how governments emerge out of that state of nature.

"95. Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and indepen- dent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfort- able, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoy- ment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the free- dom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one com- munity or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest...."

Line 95 of Book II

Kings as War-Heroes

He makes the case for how men bond together to form communities out of the "state of nature" deals with the theoretical exceptions, that early kings mostly got their authority from their prowess as leaders and generals; and then he turns back to the bible, noting that the role for both judges and the early kings was that of a General and War-leader:

109. “And thus, in Israel itself, the chief business of their judges and first kings seems to have been to be captains in war and leaders of their armies, which (besides what is signified by “going out and in before the people,” which was, to march forth to war and home again at the heads of their forces) appears plainly in the story of Jephtha. The Ammonites making war upon Israel, the Gileadites, in fear, send to Jephtha, a bastard of their family, whom they had cast off, and article with him, if he will assist them against the Ammonites, to make him their ruler, which they do in these words: “And the people made him head and captain over them” (Judges 11. 11), which was, as it seems, all one as to be judge. “And he judged Israel” (Judges 12. 7)—that is, was their captain-general- “six years....”

Kingship related to Virtue and Works, not heredity

And he continues pointing out example after example, he notes that:

"...And therefore those who, after Saul being solemnly chosen and saluted king by the tribes at Mispah, were unwill- ing to have him their king, make no other objection but this, “How shall this man save us?” (ch. 10. 27), as if they should have said: “This man is unfit to be our king, not having skill and conduct enough in war to be able to defend us.” And when God resolved to transfer the government to David, it is in these words: “But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought Him a man after His own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over His people” (ch. 13. 14.)." [Verse 109]

And concludes:

"As if the whole kingly authority were nothing else but to be their general; and therefore the tribes who had stuck to Saul’s family, and opposed David’s reign, when they came to Hebron with terms of submission to him, they tell him, amongst other arguments, they had to submit to him as to their king, that he was, in effect, their king in Saul’s time, and therefore they had no reason but to receive him as their king now. “Also,” say they, “in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel, and the Lord said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.”[Also verse 109]

He notes that kingdoms existed by necessity. Generals are born from the need for good strategy and a central figure to coordinate things. But this is a gift, an exchange, given by necessity, not heredity:

"110. Thus, whether a family, by degrees, grew up into a commonwealth, and the fatherly authority being continued on to the elder son, every one in his turn growing up under it tacitly submitted to it, and the easiness and equality of it not offending any one, every one acquiesced till time seemed to have confirmed it and settled a right of succession by prescription; or whether several families, or the descendants of several families, whom chance, neighbourhood, or business brought together, united into society; the need of a general whose conduct might defend them against their enemies in war, and the great confidence the innocence and sincerity of that poor but virtuous age, such as are almost all those which begin governments that ever come to last in the world, gave men one of another, made the first beginners of commonwealths generally put the rule into one man’s hand, without any other express limitation or restraint but what the nature of the thing and the end of government required."

But even this is:

..."was given them for the public good and safety, and to those ends, in the infancies of commonwealths, they commonly used it; and unless they had done so, young societies could not have subsisted. Without such nursing fathers, without this care of the governors, all governments would have sunk under the weakness and infirmities of their infancy, the prince and the people had soon perished together."

Refuting Patriarchy and Hereditary Nobility

In this passage John Locke both concedes and refutes a central point of Patriarchy. Yes, we need executives, but these executives hold their jobs based on trust and virtue, not hereditary or arbitrary decisions from on high. He points out that the Kings portrayed in the Bible have their jobs by trust from men and God. And he concludes:

"Yet, when ambition and luxury, in future ages, would retain and increase the power, without doing the business for which it was given, and aided by flattery, taught princes to have distinct and separate interests from their people, men found it necessary to examine more carefully the original and rights of government, and to find out ways to restrain the exorbitances and prevent the abuses of that power, which they having entrusted in another’s hands, only for their own good, they found was made use of to hurt them."

If leaders have their positions from trust, then they hold them based on trust, and when they lose that trust they lose the right to be leaders. When they are excellent at what they are supposed to do they are virtuous leaders, when they no longer fulfil that trust they are neither virtuous, legitimate, nor can they claim God's support. That John Locke felt similar is shown in his concluding statements:

242. "If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people in a matter where the law is silent or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, I should think the proper umpire in such a case should be the body of the people. For in such cases where the prince hath a trust reposed in him, and is dispensed from the common, ordinary rules of the law, there, if any men find themselves aggrieved, and think the prince acts contrary to, or beyond that trust, who so proper to judge as the body of the people (who at first lodged that trust in him) how far they meant it should extend? But if the prince, or whoever they be in the administration, decline that way of determination, the appeal then lies nowhere but to Heaven. Force between either persons who have no known superior on earth or, which permits no appeal to a judge on earth, being properly a state of war, wherein the appeal lies only to heaven; and in that state the injured party must judge for himself when he will think fit to make use of that appeal and put himself upon it. "

And he concludes his work:

"243. To conclude. The power that every individual gave the society when he entered into it can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community; because without this there can be no community—no commonwealth, which is contrary to the original agreement;" [Verse: 243]

He was referring specifically to the Legislature, but generally to all officers of the government.

Postscript

I've written on this before, but I needed to write it down again, focusing on this piece, both to explicitly explain it and so I don't have to explain it over and over again. A friend pointed to the Peasants revolt to me more than a year ago and I didn't understand what she meant since they all were betrayed and murdered by the King in a betrayal that would do justice to the Wedding in "Game of Thrones". I continually refer to this subject so I wanted to write on it somewhere where I can quote myself. Locke's thesis should be a tautology, but the far right and it's patron aristocrats have their hands everywhere rewriting narratives in order to rebrand people who criticized them as their supporters and hijack their names to advance concepts that the authors would have opposed.

Thoughts on Defending Democracy and Second Amendment

Second Amendment and Switzerland

In Switzerland, the purpose of the second amendment is on display. It's cantons are each prepared against invasions that nobody in Switzerland ever expects to happens, but they are prepared to keep their neighbors neighborly. The concept behind the second amendment was invented in places like Switzerland. The purpose of the second amendment was to avoid a standing army by having a strong militia. (Snopes: Switzerland).

In Switzerland all the males are drafted. In the USA we have the National Guard, and then we have militia which often are no better than USA Nazi or fascist Brownshirts. I believe we need to bring back a nationally organized militia to avoid the brownshirts and to strengthen democracy. If we want that, maybe we need to imitate the Swiss.

Militia and Israel

In Israel they have a similar system, though they exempt too many people from it. Israel would be well off imitating the Swiss. The Swiss have multiple religions that once were at each other throats. Originally the militia also had the job of protecting Swiss protestants from Swiss Catholics as well as from outsiders. A secular militia enables freedom of religion by encouraging people to distinguish between tribal and religious identity -- and national or civic identity. If everyone is Swiss; Buddhist, Christian, Moslem or Hindu, first, then there is no reason to kill as "Non Swiss" folks who are not one's own sectual preference.

Universal Service as Civitus versus Tribus

Teaching civic identity and civic values is part of establishing and maintaining civilization. Civitus versus "tribus" is the reason the concept of "civitus" was invented in the first place. You can't have functional markets or urbanity without the ability of many disparate people coming together under uniform laws to trade and exchange. Without those common laws, and common courts, the tendency of people is to fall to clan feuding.

Sorry but markets don't govern themselves, they have to have a government to exist. A market government may look like anarchy, but the regulations, the uniform weights and measures, the money that can be trusted, etc... are all features of government necessary to a functional market.

Militias are a Republican Institution

Civitus, is also a requirement for militia. If everyone was trained in how to use a fire arm and the principles of our democracy, they also will assert a role in the civil government. If that civil government transgresses their rights, they will stand up for them. More importantly, they will not serve an illegitimate government. Militia, as in Switzerland and Israel are necessary to civil government. They are a Republican Institution. Created to defend the State, but also as a check on Standing Armies and Royal Ambitions. It is no accident that the parade ground was also the forum, was also frequently the market place, and was associated with elections. Originally only men could vote. And only men could serve in the militia. The right to defend one's liberty is associated with the right to participate in government. The basis of democracy is the right of people to participate in defending their homes. Without that right, and people fulfilling the duties associated with it, power is usurped by standing armies and authorities.

Religion and Republicanism

The right to defend oneself is also associated with religious liberty. During the English Civil wars, Catholics were disarmed under Protestant rule and Protestants were disarmed in Catholic ruled areas. Ultimately, this issue was resolved by the concept of military virtue as serving a virtuous state. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc... agreed to defend their country and allow all religions the freedom to worship, to protect their own freedom to worship. "Secular humanism" wasn't invented opposed to religion, that is a modern myth. Secular humanism is just an expression of the concept of "civitus" taken to modern times. A state religion denies freedom to people who exercise choice in what they believe. Heresis (choice) became "heresy" in early Christianity because of the authoritarian of the Roman and successive Empires. Without the right to participate in one's own government, militia or standing armies, would be turned on deciding which version of authoritarian religion is number one. The concept of militia is designed to protect Baptist against Anglican, Quaker against Baptist. We all unite together to protect our rights.

For more on this read:

The Palladium of Liberty

Uniform Service

Maybe, we need to bring back the militia, with a uniform "basic training" so that young adults can grow up together and responsibly use fire-arms. And they would need to have a license as a result -- and only those with such a license should be able to acquire one. So if someone has a gun, it is secured according to regulations, used by someone who knows to empty the bullets out before cleaning it, etc...

Or maybe we need to modernize the whole concept. Modern volunteerism and Emergency response, include Police, Fire, Rescue, Emergency Services, Repairs to Infrastructure, Hospitals and Clinics, Ambulance Services, etc... Pretty much every service to the people of the country has both a training and educational component, a need for local readiness and components and a national component. Perhaps we need to expand our concept of "militia" to include a panoply of services that defend our security. A strong case can be made for applying the model spelled out in the constitution to accomplish socially necessary public good. For more on this read:

The Case for Expanding the National Guard

National Emergency Service and the Militia

Inclusiveness Versus Outlaws

Criminals sometimes move outside the law on their own, but often they are pushed there by exclusion from legitimate society. The concept of civitus is around the notion we should pull them into our comity and create a civilization rather than warring communities and tribes. Even tribal communities usually have something like that. They take the kids, train them, run them through an initiation ceremony and after that they are adults, act like adults, feel they are adults and usually are ready to be adults. Militia plays that role in civilized societies on a larger scale.

And Militia is part of how modern and ancient democracy got started. The first step to democracy is the general assembly. And most general assemblies were initially of men who could fight to defend a town or village. An army can provide a rough democracy to a town and in ancient England the Yeomanry won their rights because their arrows and weapons were necessary to the survival of the British Crown in it's wars and civil wars. They won rights by being able to fight for them, and then not having to do so, because the official government; barons, clerics and officials -- had to respect them.

Representation usually came with the ability to provide armed forces as well. Our militia made the difference in our revolution against the British, but it was the unity of it, and it being led by a trained officer corps that made the difference. Hence the words "well regulated militia" in the constitution. We've had a standing army due to external wars, but if we weren't constantly war-mongering at the behest of war-profiteers we wouldn't need such a standing army. And we've traditionally drawn our standing army by drafting people who spend the rest of their obligation in militia. Police, fire, rescue, all have their origins in militia. We need to have a stronger National Guard, and train people so they can be part of our society -- and that starts with training them to be in a militia. It doesn't have to be an armed militia; fire brigades, flood brigades, medical brigades, even science and health brigades, could fill the bill too.

Using the National Guard to Defend our Security

So we should use the National Guard, strengthen it's functions, and include within it medical corps, first responder training, fire and rescue training, first aid. All the stuff folks like me learned as a boy scout. And use that institution to create a real bottom up institution to involve our young men in our society.

Anyway, I'd take most of our guns, the heavy caliber ones, and move them to armories, that would just also happen to be associated with community centers, firing ranges, and where people could learn to fire a gun, and if they wanted an AK-47 or AR-15, keep it in a gun locker under control of a Sargent there. Then should there be a disaster they'd be the first responders, not some invading army. And if someone wants to play with his assault rifle, he can do it some place where he's not going to hurt anyone. Or she.

We can get by with a smaller standing army, if we put a larger commitment to militia and to training our young people. This is the "Reserve" successor to the original Militia Idea. This should be using the constitution. A Standing Army, especially one that is mercenary and run for profit, is a danger to our Republic. Now I'd organize it on a membership basis, with National, State, county and local member branches run by full time soldiers, backed by a membership organization where militia members would have a voice in their own affairs with elected structures and general assemblies. The right to assemble is in the constitution for multiple reasons.

For More on Using the Constitution to stand up a functional Security System:

National Emergency Response and the Militia

This was one of my first posts on the subject. I've written on the subject in great detail since

Sources

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp

Further Reading

ttps://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-palladium-of-liberty.html

What the Founders meant by Militia

How the Militia Of the Whole Concept failed in the 19th Century

Bandar's Wasta: Bandar's Rebels start their campaign against Sochi

The Daily Beast reports that the two bombings in Russia are most likely aimed at the Sochi Olympics. The Chechens are fulfilling Bandar's threat that he'd sabotage the Winter Olympics if the Russians didn't cooperate with him on Regime Change and establishing a Taliban Government in Syria. The Israel's and USA seem to be (mostly) cooperating with the Saudis, but the Russians refused to and so Bandar warned them of the consequences. I wrote on this back in December when Al Qaeda influenced operatives in the USA were pushing for us to invade Syria and topple Assad so that Saudi Backed Salafists (Al Qaeda types) could take over there. (http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/09/so-obviously-about-oil-that-one-is.html). At that time I quoted a leaked warning from Bandar. It's worded Mafia style, but then most of this stuff is:

"As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us."

So now we have the beginning of a Chechen campaign. Daily Beast reports that the attacks are most probably:

"...the work of Chechen rebels inspired by or under the command of separatist leader Doku Umarov, who has called on his followers to unleash “maximum force” on Russia in the run-up to the Sochi Games. As the head of a group called the Caucasus Emirate, Umarov has claimed responsibility for a spate of prior suicide bombings in Russia that killed over 100 victims, including the 2011 attack on the Domodedovo airport, the 2010 bombing of the Moscow subway, and the 2009 targeting of the high-speed Nevsky Express train. Umarov and his cohorts have also been blamed for a suicide bombing outside the Chechen Interior Ministry in 2009. In July, the U.S. State Department declared the Caucasus Emirate to be a foreign terror group and put a $5 million bounty on information leading to Umarov’s arrest."

Can't say that Bandar didn't warn them. Mess with the Saudis and they'll turn loose their Jihadist Salafist fanatics on you. Can anyone be surprised at the results? Will we see a massive attack like Black September on Israeli Atheletes in the 70's? Or will the Russian Secret Police be able to hold the attacks to minimum. But it won't be for the Saudis holding back. The CIA probably knows about the paper trail, but enough of them seem to be on the side of Al Qaeda that they probably won't do anything. Bandar Has Wasta.

Now Umarov used to claim to be a Sufi, not a Wahabi (Salafist) but it appears that money comes with influence and he no longer seems to deny it.

Further reading:

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920913001403

http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=487161

The Grinches Takes Washington

The GreenGrinch has a plan

After the Grinch failed to steal Christmas,

The King of Grinchdom was very upset with him,

He hadn’t stopped that infernal singing,

He hadn’t enslaved or dispossessed them,
Or put them to work in Grinchville factories

Or made them fight in Grinchine wars.

Instead he’d given them back all that well taken loot!
and acted very un Grinchlike, such an uppity snoot!

“We can’t have Grinches who act like Who’s

They might get liberal, they might laugh and smooze.

We can’t have who’s who don’t know their place,

To be poor and stupid and work for our race.”  

So indeed drummed him out of their society.

And gathered in their retreats to figure out a strategy.

He was quite content because his heart had become so big

He quite preferred Whoville

But the King of the Grinches didn’t know what to do.

Their king asked his council; “What will we do?”

WE still despise Christmas,

And Hanukah, and Ramadan,

And Marzipan, fruitcake, milkshakes, eggnog and fun.

WE still despise people getting together,
and quite enjoying the nasty weather.
Unless they are rich like Duke GreenGrinch.

And Duke GreenGrinch spoke up:

"Would that he were just acting, he had a very good plan.
Act nice and they went to sleep and he had it all there.
The key is that he made the mistake to actually care.

He dressed like Santa, and they bought the whole lie.
And didn’t look twice when he stole everything around.

Ah, I have an idea now how to make this all right!
An Army of Grinches to descend on the Capital!"

The GreenGrinch executes

So he went to his treasury and called all his guards,

And started investing in pork and lards,

Then called all his advisors,
and all of his youngest Grinch-lairds,
and he sent them to school to learn PR and business,
and he bought up schools, colleges and created institutions to schmooze

And with Grinches for teachers, he taught Who’s to be Grinches,
They learned about bottom lines, cost cutting and money,
and were taught that Christmas was quaint and quite funny.
And this thing called marketing made them pretend to love it.
While using it to sell soap, and guns and bombs.

And he bought all the newspapers and put Grinches in charge,
It wasn’t so hard, they flocked to his standard.

And he bought a thing called TV, and radio, and ambitious whovians.

He trained an army of Grinch lawyers to put poor whovians in jail,

And make sure this thing called justice would serve Grinches without any fail.

Then he assembled an army of Grinches to march on Washington,

Wearing tailored uniform suits, Grinch smiles, and beating little Grinch hearts,
They said “The Whovians are making war on Christmas” year after year,
until even the whovians believed it, in their irrational fear.

Now his army was ready, the plans were in place.
No need for a sleigh, the army had portfolios and briefs at the ready.

And they marched on Washington with abandon and glee,

They were going to save it from Christmas!

The Grinches were ready!

So they marched on the city and filled all it’s halls,

And stole all of it’s money, and painted all of it’s walls.

They still put up the lights and the carols and trees,

But the carols blazed out of boom boxes, recorded years ago,

And were sung by Grinches who rewrote the language!

You had Rancid Previousgrinch,

and his dog Baymore,

the Drunk prince of the House,

And Duke Greengrinch, all fat and smiling like a cat.

You had Rupert Grinchdock with his newspapers and radio,

And his army of Grinches marching in tow.

The Grinch Cantor was singing, Grinch Ryan leading the song.

GrinchConnell lead the singing and the Grinch press the chorus.

The music was Christmas, but the lyrics all were wrong:

“Deck the halls with balls and chains, fa la la la la la la la la

‘tis the season for whips and chains, falalalalalalala

Now yon carrion wants a job! Lob him out! In the snow, tra la la.

We serve our master King Greengrinch, fa la la la la, la la la.”

And their legions descended on Washington and thoroughly trashed the place.

Oh I wish there was a happy ending here, but there isn’t.

If you see them for what you are, you’ll soon be seeing double;

You see the Grinches are still in charge, and you and we are in trouble.

They stole Christmas again, and nobody noticed.

Happy Hanukah, merry Christmas, joyous Kwanza and a better new year, I hope.

Story References Doctor Sues’s book “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” rest is parody, pure fiction, and mostly my own imagination.

Faux and the Republicans stole Christmas this year

This year the Republicans have done their best, and finally succeeded, in stealing Christmas (or Hanukkah, Ramadan or solstice) from millions of Americans. They shot down extended unemployment benefits for the millions of Bob Cratchets whose Scrooge "Job-Creators" outsourced their jobs to either SE. Asia or to a computer/robot. And they decided to recalculate retirement benefits so they've messed with veterans. All in a wonderful Christmas Package that the mainstream media called a "miracle of compromise". Yes, compromised is the right word. They stole even the lump of coal.

As usual when Faux news hypes up it's anti-semitic and mean "War on Christmas" it is abusive projectionism. Folks really have to stop falling for the red outfits and remember what red flags are really all about. The entire lot of them are an army of Grinches.

Organizing Communities around the Post Office

In the book "The Kings Best Highway" the subtext is that the Post Office was the organizing principle around which the initial British Colonies organized themselves. The mission of the Post office was originally to provide communication between all the outposts of the British Empire and it's relations. As a result when one hears "post office" one should think about more than mail delivery, because the post office is - and should be - also an "outpost", "branch", "office" of the Government. The key here is to remember that it shouldn't be a branch of a bureaucracy but of our democracy as well. The make or break moment for settlements in the Americas has always been when they could finally get mail service. In Colonial times, when the British accused Benjamin Franklin of being "the evil genius" behind the colonial revolt, the accusers were probably thinking of the time when he was Post-Master and the post office was allowing Postmasters to open up private newspapers to supplement their income. The Post office is the source for a free press, as well as the catalyst for most of our modern transportation: Rails, Airlines, Telegraph, Highways, Telephone, even canals. The movie The Postman (and David Brin's book that it was based on), follow the logic premised here and illustrates how important it is that we have a functional post office to our countries survival.

Semi Privatized Post Office gets it backwards

This country created the "Committees of Correspondence" during the 1770's largely because they couldn't trust the bureaucratic and Royally controlled British Post office. When Paul Revere's crew road to let folks know the "Regulars are Coming" they were working as an alternative post office because The Royal Post office was spying on the mail being sent officially. Later we'd establish a national post office, and still later the constitution would establish a National Post office, unfortunately we seem to have used the British Model instead of Benjamin Franklin's. When Jefferson fretted about the National Post Office that:

"You will begin by only appropriating the surplus of the post office revenues; but the other revenues will soon be called into their aid, and it will be a scene of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest. We have thought, hitherto, that the roads of a State could not be so well administered even by the State legislature as by the magistracy of the county, on the spot. What will it be when a member of N H is to mark out a road for Georgia? Does the power to establish post roads, given you by Congress, mean that you shall make the roads, or only select from those already made, those on which there shall be a post?"[Src]

Jefferson was right in that the Post Office became a means of patronage by which senators and congressmen would jockey for roads and bridges in their state, and sometimes neglect those in other states. But it also is severe failure of imagination on the part of the founders, most of whom were trying to get in on the patronage that Jefferson alludes to. Privatizing the Post Office into just a mail delivery service is missing all the opportunities for how a Post Office can be a democratic institution. Indeed the Post Office has made private fortunes at public expense for most of it's history -- world-wide.

Privatizing postal functions dates all the way back to when the Post Office sponsored Stage Coach traffic, and Toll Roads, for bulk mail delivery in order to sponsor better personnel transportation for private benefit while improving mail delivery. Modern UPS, Federal Express, and similar private carriers wouldn't exist if the Government hadn't let them in on the monopoly. And the Post Office played a role in creating law and order as lawless persons inevitably would steal from the Post Office and thus attract US Marshals who'd come and enforce the law.

In some countries the post office owns the rails, in some it also owns the banks. In some it owns (or owned before they were privatized) both. In Germany the Post Office (before being privatized) owned a giant consumer bank, and all communications. In Japan it still owns the banks (For now). Privatization is often seen as an alternative to bureaucracy. This privatization has made a few well connected business entrepreneurs filthy rich over the past 300 years, mostly by subsidizing startup enterprise by the taxpayers and then letting the business-folks suck the value of out the resulting privatized systems. T-Mobile, was once part of the German Transportation monopoly. I remember visiting Germany in the 80's and being impressed with the Rails, communications and Post Office. Now it is a private company -- but it still has a monopoly position in Germany. This is not totally evil, but it's a transfer of wealth from individual citizens to companies and from the companies to private persons -- who got very rich without doing much.

Bureaucratic Post Office versus Post Office as Democratic Institution

The British model isn't necessarily the best way to go, nor is privatization. Sure they are great ways to make fortunes for a few people. But we still wind up with services that are top down, top heavy, bureaucratic and potential tools for repression and repression, even when privatized. Jefferson alluded to a better way, but he never quite connected when he said that administration would be better by the "magistry on the spot" because we haven't really taken a cooperative "people's" approach to our institutions since the constitution was written. We used to have post masters at every post. The early Post Masters ran free presses which helped "guarantee a republican form of government" replicated down to town and county. We can do better than that if we treat the Post Office as a democratic institution and run it as one.

The Post Office is not just a mail delivery service, it is also an agency of the Government. In prior times it has collected taxes, enabled people to pay bills to the government, and acted as such. The post office is still the heart of governing action if one considers that the basis of most social media is the "email". If the post office is an agency of the people then it would be an agency with democratic attributes and the ability to replicate them to the entire country. It should reflect the people with a direct relationship with local legislatures. It should be integrated with State and local government. That was Jefferson's complaint, but there is no reason one can't have Federalism and still have such cooperation. People should have a right to assembly within their settlements, and a right to representation within all their local governments and that includes the companies and institutions they work in. If the Post Offices themselves are an agency of government -- not any government but all government, and especially an agency of democratic government. Then their job is to uphold rule of law as well as deliver mail, to ensure that no central government terrorizes its citizens, not merely stamp envelops. It's a limited scope but the local postmaster or marshal should have the job of ensuring that elections are fair and that all the people in a locality have a say in the business of that locality.

Privatizing communications, transportation, banking and other such functions makes private fortunes, but it is giving governance over them to private barons. For that reason it takes things the opposite direction. Instead of the Post Office and it's privatized branches acting as agencies and trustees of the people's good, they become buccaneers and freebooters of the people's goods. Folks go from being equal citizens to being subjects. Private rule tends to first milk, and then bleed and loot it's subjects. It may be more efficient to have an accountable executive -- but the keyword there is accountability and to get that there has to be oversight. Someone has to watch the overseers other than the local baron.

What made the old Post Office invented by Franklin so effective is that it also was an agency of legislation and adjudication, oversight and even a free Press. We could have defined the countries government in a way that would have worked for everybody if we'd been as creative in developing our Post Office as in using it as an agency for aggrandizing private fortunes. The Post Office should be an agency that replicates democratic features from the community upwards and from the General Executive to the locality. If the "magistry on the spot" were in charge of the local Post office -- and accountable to the people -- then post masters would be more effective at doing their jobs and these monopolies wouldn't be monopolies but services to the people.

The Post Office should own and manage the buildings that government is done in,should own the "communications system" and this should be organized on a service membership basis replicated down to County, Township and community with citizens having a say at all levels either through local elections. And it's okay to privatize the executive, but that executive should be serving the people and under their watchful eyes. The people should own the tracks, the system, the wires, and the function of the system as a whole. Not private plutocrats.

Individual enterprise that improves everyone's position is a good thing. Enterprise based on looting, privatizing (privateering) and monopolistic practices is not. Instead of complaining about the way the Post Office function was abused, what might have been better is if Madison and Jefferson had organized the Post Office on the principles they liked. A simple "bottom up" rule would have made the Post Office a Democratic Institution and ensured the "locality" that Jefferson talked about, and also a Federal one. "Every community shall have the right to postal service, to petition for and to establish a post office for it's community, and the General Government shall link these post offices and ensure that communications and goods are delivered to their intended recipients in the best possible manner."

Further Reading

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_7s4.html

Review of "The Tragic Situation"

David Brooks in the New York Times today contends:

"Sometimes life presents clear choices, but often it presents tragic situations. A tragic situation is one in which you are caught in a vise between two competing goods, so it is necessary to compromise one or the other, or maybe a bit of both. Or it’s one in which you are pursuing something good, but you must fight brutal enemies along the way, so it is impossible to be virtuous while being innocent."[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/opinion/brooks-the-tragic-situation.html?_r=0]

But that is a false choice, especially in the case where David Brooks tries to apply it. A tragic situation is where one is forced to choose between horrible outcomes. A choice between "competing goods" is not tragic by definition. The second choice is also a false choice. It is only a tragic choice if the warrior loses his soul along the way, or the enemy wins.

The real tragedy of Tragic situations is that virtue doesn't guarantee success but abandoning virtue guarantees failure.

One can fight brutal enemies and remain virtuous. And while it may be impossible to remain "innocent" while doing so. The goal of a wise person is not innocence but wisdom. One cannot remain innocent while growing up. A grownup is not innocent. One may be righteous, but that is rare, more often one must be "Repentant". Brooks writes:

"A tragic situation means you are trying to pursue some large good project, but you are caught in a circumstance that imposes awful necessities."

No a tragic situation is one where the outcome is death and dismemberment. What Israel faces is perilous but not yet tragic.

David claims:

"Israel is caught in a tragic situation. It’s surrounded by an Arab world that is largely hostile to its existence. No Arab leader has enough legitimacy to make peace. It is in a region marked by failed states, decentered radical Islam and rampant turmoil. "

Israel's situation is worse than he describes but still not tragic. It is surrounded by an entire world that is becoming increasingly hostile to it's very existence. Europeans, Christians, Anglo-Brits, all are starting to question whether Israel even has the right to be in the Palestinian corner of the Fertile crescent. And a lot of this is the result of Israel's own behavior. Before 1967 most people accepted that Israel was a righteous place, but the behavior of West Bank settlers, improved propaganda efforts by the Palestinian diasporah, and the behavior of Netanyahu, and his predecessor Ariel Sharon, has undermined Israel's claim to righteous virtue. It's not just the Arab leaders who lack legitimacy. Netanyahu has refused to challenge his own far right influences or bargain with his neighbors. Israel's situation is difficult. It only will become tragic if it refuses to handle that situation with diplomacy and wisdom. Nobody is actively ready to blow Israel up, for all their rhetoric. But it could happen if everyone involved behaves foolishly

David next claims:

"Today this brutal situation boils down to one torturous choice, which Ari Shavit captures in his superb book, “My Promised Land”: “If Israel does not retreat from the West Bank, it will be politically and morally doomed, but if it does retreat, it might face an Iranian-backed and Islamic Brotherhood-inspired West Bank regime whose missiles could endanger Israel’s security. The need to end occupation is greater than ever, but so are the risks.” "

It might face an Iranian backed and Islamic brotherhood inspired west bank regime, or it might face a Saudi Backed and Al Qaeda inspired West Bank Regime. Israel sabotaged the moderates over the past 10 years of fear and loathing. It could go on occupying the West Bank forever, in which case it will eventually face economic collapse, after which it won't be able to afford a military. It is easy to take a 99% solution and eliminate all the risks. That is not virtuous behavior. Israel doesn't have the option of a genuine holocaust against Palestinians. It has no choice but to withdraw from occupied territories and work for a "West Bank" that tolerates Jews living there in return.

David next gives an analysis of the Settlers:

"But there will always be those whose minds recoil from the ambiguity of a tragic situation. Some of these people turn into amoral realists and decide in the brutal situation that anything that advances survival is permitted. Under their leadership, security becomes insecurity because security measures are taken to the extreme. These are the people who want to permanently colonize the West Bank."

These people are the ones whose immoral behavior, hiding behind highly parsed interpretations of the bible and their own greed and ambition, whose vicious behavior is undermining Israel's ability to survive in the Mideast. David doesn't seem to see that the difference between them and those he claims are on "the other side" is nil. He claims

"On the other side, there are people whose minds seem to flee, almost by instinct, from ambiguity to absolutism."

That describes the Settlers, that describes the Left wing which eschews the whole idea of a homeland for religious people or a particular tribe, and it describes the moral viciousness of folks who claim to be "good people, with high ideals" but who are actually bad people with pernicious ideals. And the description also describes many of Israel's individual enemies.

And one has to realize that justice is a matter of balancing legal abstractions such as justice, rule of law, equity, with compassion and with the recognition that one makes deals after a war to settle the war because there is no restoring all the things that were broken by the warriors. There is nothing virtuous about war. For all the efforts to wage war virtuously, it is a vicious, killing, destructive FUBAR reality. And settling wars requires compassion, requires everyone who has been hurt (victim and victimizers) to tell their stories and recognizing that contending people's are both victim and victimizer -- none can behave completely virtuous in war. Though they have to try - and usually fail.

And David is right about so many people who refuse to look at Israel from all angles, or see the middle east clearly, including many of the combattants on both sides who:

"want to judge [] according to black and white legal abstractions. They find a crime or an error and call for blanket condemnation (these people tend not to apply this standard to themselves)."

The same argument can be made about most partisans; left, right and "peace-nik", but justice requires finding all the facts and overcoming tunnel vision. If Arabs in the Gaza strip are suffering from Israeli attacks, Israel suffers from their constant bombing. Both actions are illegal in a condition of peace, but symptomatic that there is a continuing war between Palestinian Muslems and Palestinian Jews (Arabs and Israelis). As David notes:

"you rarely see them taking the perspective of people they dislike. They don’t acknowledge that even the most humane projects often involve error, fear and sin along the way."

Strategy is the key to settling this war. The great generals understand their enemies better than their enemies do. That is why Great Generals are also great peace-makers. Iran is not an implacable enemy. The Islamic Brotherhood is no more dangerous than Al Qaeda, and no more dangerous than the Irgun was, or it's modern equivalents. Virtue in war involves understanding the enemy. It doesn't mean not killing that enemy, but it does mean being accurate, strategic, and remembering that one day one has to make peace. A Good Hunter understands his game whether he's shooting it or just learning it's movements.

Israel should consider that it's not big enough so that removing parts of the West Bank from it's boundaries would be the end of the world, and that it has to win the argument for world opinion, not just the ground battles. It was at it's best when the world saw it as David against Goliath. Being a Goliath doesn't work well for Israel. Samson destroyed himself because he couldn't connect power and virtue. Israel needs to make these settlements with the Arabs regardless of what the Arabs do next.

There is a strategy to peace and war. One should never go to war until the war is already won in the planning. One guarantees peace when one is prepared for peace.

Frank Herbert said it best in his Dune series:

"Fear is the Mindkiller, fear is the little death that destroys all..."

Come to think of it, after rereading David's article and rereading my own critique I'm realizing that his description isn't of a tragic situation but a farce! It is time that Israel develop some leadership and stop waiting on the Arabs to develop any. Where is their Abraham Lincoln or Mandela?

Further reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/opinion/brooks-the-tragic-situation.html?_r=0 David Broder's article