Guelfs and Tories, Wolves and Plunderers

I traced the term "Guelf" to the German word "Wolf". There are two moods of government. In one government needs it's citizens and serves them, paying attention to such terms as commonwealth, fairness, justice, duty, honor and virtue. But in the other you have government as Predator State1. In his article in Mother Jones Galbraith refers to the characteristics of the Predator state:

"Predation has become the dominant feature—a system wherein the rich have come to feast on decaying systems built for the middle class."...."in a predatory regime, nothing is done for public reasons. Indeed, the men in charge do not recognize that “public purposes” exist. They have friends, and enemies, and as for the rest—we’re the prey. Hurricane Katrina illustrated this perfectly, as Halliburton scooped up contracts and Bush hamstrung Kathleen Blanco, the Democratic governor of Louisiana. The population of New Orleans was, at best, an afterthought; once dispersed, it was quickly forgotten." [Mother Jones Article]

Whigs and Tories, Guelphs and Ghibellines, partisanship and war

Guelphs and Ghibellines

Before there ever were Whigs or Tories, the first political parties tore apart the misnamed Holy Roman Empire. Our founders feared "faction", and when they thought of faction they thought of Tories and Whigs, but they also were thinking of Guelphs and Ghibellines, the two parties who tore up Italy from 1075 until at least the 15th century. Our Country's founders feared such "faction".

Ghibellines

Gibelline: Definition

a member of one of the two great political factions in Italian medieval politics, traditionally supporting the Holy Roman Emperor against the Pope and his supporters, the Guelphs.

The southern Ghibellines (at least initially) loved the idea of Democracy -- but thought of it as an orderly system where ordinary folks listened to their wealthy elders and elected them to office. They watched in horror as common folks tarred and feathered tax collectors or asked them pesky questions. The Northern Elites felt much the same and that is why they were astounded when minor (only untitled because the constitution says they can't be) "gentry"; lords and masters like Jefferson, Madison and others preached democracy. Their idea of Republicanism was designed to reign in folks who might one day drive them out of office with pitchforks. Their fears were not totally unfounded. Robert Morris was attacked by a mob after he bilked thousands of investors out of their funds in real estate speculation. He wound up in Debtor Prison. One good thing came out of that. His gentry admirers passed our first bankruptcy law, in part, to get him out of debtor's prison. It probably helped his political enemy Thomas Jefferson too. Not all our founders were good at managing financial affairs.

The Federalists weren't saints

The "Federalists" were a party like the Ghibellines or Guelphs. Their enemies were "anti-Federalists. Their partisanship sounded very "Jacobin" -- about "democracy" and "freedom" but as I've noticed elsewhere those were banners and flags. Partisanship is about power and how to divide the wealth pie. The ideology is important, but it is often secondary to the real aims of the Partisans.

Factions grows out of conflicts that usually start with a genuine partisan or ideology basis. Eventually the movements tend to lose focus and it sometimes gets hard to tell what they were originally fighting about. That is because for the officers of the conflict the real issues of their followers aren't their own real issues. We should remember that as we look further.

Forgetting the Principles

Sometimes the original issues get so lost they get reduced to mindlessly chanted slogans, chanted by borderline people, whose definition of good or evil has become so corrupted it's completely tribal, partisan and dictated by authorities; as depicted in this Star Trek Episode called the "Omega Glory". In that episode, William Shatner, playing Captain Kirk had to read the Constitution back to the wild men "Yangs", who treated it as a sacred document but couldn't read it. Partisanship might start out with firm principles, but the fighting can last for years beyond the original issues.

Omega Glory URL: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGO-SldLrNA]

Evil Mother

To the Tune of "Evil Woman:"

 

E-evil Mother! E-evil mother....

He's going to hell, No matter what you do.

Spare the rod, and your fears will come true.

Hate the crime, whether he's done it or not.

Never mind that you've become a drunken sot.

 

E-evil Mother, E-evil Mother....

He's already in Hell. That Hell is you.

Your child needs your love lady, not your hate.

Spare the rod, or you'll make your fears come true.

Get yourself sober woman! It's not too late.

Get off your high horse. Stand on your feet.

Hate is a crime, love will transform you.

If you read your bible, you'll see my words are true.

 

Christopher H. Holte, 9/22/2015

Inspired by an ugly story of a Woman who sees a 4 year old as evil because he's left handed.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/oklahoma-teacher-orders-evil-4-year-old-to-become-righty-devil-is-often-portrayed-as-left-handed/

& Electric Light Orchestra!

Electric Light Orchestra: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R20f-TPKjzc]

Rewrite the rules!

The Post Keynesians have coalesced! They are groping towards notions of Sovereign money but are still in reform mode. Joseph Stiglitz Speaks out! If we follow their policy recommendations we can put an end to the self inflicted suffering of "austerity" and the Bull Hocky excuses for punishing common folks for the high crimes and misdemeanors by our ruling elements.

Why Social Programs are Investment and Not a Burden

The Grand Old Party (GOP) put out a shill article in their no longer integral rag "The Wall Street Journal" on Bernie's Sander's economic proposals that make it sound like we can't afford any improvements. And given the other propaganda they put out, if they had their way they'd be cutting current programs even more. But there are many reasons why their arguments are bogus on their face. They claim that the price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals is $18 Trillion. Other pundits weighed in with all sorts of excuses to agree with the Wall Street Journal. For example the now corrupt Washington Post piled on with this gem:

"Sanders identifies significant challenges, and we support higher taxes to meet some of them. But the political barriers even to modest new spending are formidable. A true progressive agenda would seek to dismantle those barriers, not create new entitlements for the upper middle class." [Wa-Po]

Investment Pays for Itself!

However, Robert Reich explains why the Wall Street's math is not only bogus but Bull Hockey. It ought to be common sense that we need to invest in public programs to generate common-wealth so that we can all be more productive and pursue happiness.

As Reich notes:

“Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them.” [Reich]

1. “Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone.” [Reich]

And he notes that the cost of doing this is more than offset by the savings:

“This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices.” [Reich]

In fact going to a medicare for all would probably save billions of dollars. And Reich next notes this as he quotes Gerald Friedman:

“(Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, whom the Journal relies on for some of its data, actually estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).” [Reich]

Our current system depends on privateering for profit providers, private banks, private hospitals, private clinics, Health Care Organizations, Drug companies and Insurance Companies. So, lo and behold:

2. “The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.” [Reich]

This is funny, and if we can explain this to our fellow citizens we can defeat these privateers. The only people Bernie's proposals threaten at all are folks who don't work for their living and who draw unearned income and have unearned privilege. We are suffering deficits because The Government doesn't bear those costs. They are passed on to the suffering and to those who can't afford them -- and then the public pays the jacked up costs of people who are more ill than necessary and a burden on the taxpayer. Robert Reich's next point thus points to the moral argument for doing this:

3. “Many of these other “costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families – for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn’t be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.” [Reich]

Investment is where Capital comes from!

The trouble with conservative economic arguments is that the financial health of the country is the balance of payments and debts of the entire population of the country.

4. “Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.” [Reich]

When we take care of our own we are doing investment. Henry George's definition of capital is wealth that is reinvested in the economy to further production. Investing in people is a sort of capital. We people are wealth, and wealth has no meaning without sentient beings to enjoy it.

So yes Bernie isn't as radical as those with unearned wealth and privilege would paint him. Indeed his proposals are OUR proposals. They've been on the progressive wish list since FDR was President. The only ones who might be impacted by his proposals are people who leach of the rest of us. And it turns out that they've been leaching on us using bogus economic theories all this time.

It gets even better

But it gets even better. A case can be made that not only can we afford all our social programs but we do not need to be listening to the "nattering nabobs of negativity" who are treating our country the way their predecessor Nabobs treated India as heads of the East India Company. If we end unearned privilege and take control of our money supply we need not worry about the carrying costs of carrying these people forever because we can make our own money!

For more either read my next post or read the writer/economist John T. Harvey, article, "Can America Afford Bernie Sanders' Agenda?"

Continued....

Sources and Further Reading

The Bogus Wall Street Article "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion":

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

Derivative Business Insider Article:

http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-isnt-as-progressive-as-you-think-2015-9

Robert Reich's Article:

http://robertreich.org/post/129306966350

Forbes: Can America Afford Sanders' Agenda? by John T. Harvey:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2015/09/21/can-america-afford-sanders/

Quantum of Power by Arslan Ibrahim

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum-power-arslan-ibrahim

Basic Principles of Taxation and Law

Restoring Progressivity to the Tax System

We must restore progressivity to our tax system. But before we can do that without getting conned and distracted by the faux libertarian and other Con arguments we have to understand what the word "progressivity" in taxation means and what the issues are and are not.

What is and what is not fairness

To some wealthy, "fairness" means preserving (conserving) wealth and passing wealth and power to their progeny. Which happens to be the definition of hereditary aristocracy. Such people call themselves conservatives because they are trying to conserve their wealth and power. Because such people are often in positions of trust, we tend to trust them. But their idea of "fairness" is not always very fair.

To the rest of us, unless we've been conned by such people, fairness means preserving one's wage income from excessive rents and taxes and saving enough surplus (individually or collectively) to be able to survive illness, disaster and live a dignified old age. To the young it means eating, having shelter and affording a decent education, clothes and transportation so they can pursue happiness through productive employment. A person is poor if these abilities are burdened through excessive charges by those with power and privilege -- or by folks locking the gates to productive opportunity. Our concerns emerge from the "pursuit of happiness" which is a basic right. Theirs emerge from power and privilege and the need to justify it. It's not a natural state, a "common-wealth" system is win/win for everyone.

Origins of the East India Company -- Pirates

The British created a corporation called the "East India Company" as an extension of their privateering against the rest of Europe and their piracy across the globe. The East India company was according to Paul Rittman's sanitized history:

"The British East India Company was formed to share in the East Indian spice trade. This trade had been a near monopoly of Spain and Portugal until the Dutch moved into the region in the 1600s; after which they maintained the same control by trying to keep out other nations. The British were relative latecomers to the East Indies trade; the first British pilot to sail to India via the Cape of Good Hope (near the southern tip of South Africa), did so in 1582—almost a century after Vasco da Gama made the journey for Portugal." [Paul Rittman: R&F]

Rittman's narrative strips out context. There is always a motive for doing that. So let's resupply it. The context of the creation of the East India Company was the Protestant Reformation, the internal struggle between authoritarian absolutism and commonwealth and Piracy.

The Search for Loot

The East India Company was the outgrowth of not just any kind of commerce but of Privateering. Privateering is legal piracy. The British wars with France, Spain and other countries gave license to british Merchants such as the Hawkins family, to loot and steal on the high seas. The protestant reformation gave them license to directly challenge Spain and Portugal, who had been granted a monopoly over most of the world by the Pope. So when Rittman notes:

"One thing that motivated the British to trade in the East, was seeing the immense wealth of the ships that made the trip there, and back. In 1593, a captured Portuguese ship was hauled into a British port —1,500 tons burden, 700 men and 36 brass canon. This was the largest vessel that had ever been seen in Britain, her hull full of eastern cargo: gold, spices, calicos, silks, pearls, porcelain, and ivory." [Paul Rittman: R&F]

He is leaving out that the British were already up to their hips in a worldwide struggle against the Spanish and Portuguese. By 1600, Intrepid Pirates like Sir Francis Drake and is mentor the Hawkins family had been challenging the Spanish and Portuguese, and before them the French, for years. For example Sir Francis Drake cut his teeth privateering against the French:

"Francis was apprenticed to a merchant who sailed coastal waters trading goods between England and France. He took to navigation well and was soon enlisted by his relatives, the Hawkinses." [Drake]

A Privateer was an armed Merchant who saw a merchant ship from an enemy country and had a license to attack it. Privateering and piracy were alternative ways for "Sea Dogs" or ocean going merchants to make money. As illustrated by the Portuguese example a captured ship could be sold at auction for an immense fortune, and everyone from Captain on down would usually share in the prize money. Privateering, smuggling and legitimate enterprise were seen as a single profession by such merchants. A pirate was an outlaw who didn't have a license to steal.

Piracy and Slaving

That was really the only difference other than the virtual slavery of sailors aboard privateers and their "outlaw freedom" on pirate ships. So for example the slave trade involved (illegal) British sailors pretty much from it's inception. This biography of Sir Francis Drake notes that one of his earliest expeditions was to Africa and "New Spain" as a slaver. It also notes that Drake was employed by the Hawkins family and that they were slavers. It was a hazardous occupation. Especially during wartime.

"By the 1560s, Francis Drake was given command of his own ship, the Judith. With a small fleet, Drake and his cousin, John Hawkins, sailed to Africa to engage in the slave trade. They then sailed to New Spain to sell their captives to settlers, an action that was against Spanish law. In 1568, Drake and Hawkins were trapped in the Mexican port of San Juan de Ulua. The two escaped, but many of their men were killed. The incident instilled in Drake a deep hatred of the Spanish crown." [Drake]

King James and East India company Entrepreneurship

The only real difference between the earlier privateers and the East India Company was that this private warfare had been successful enough so that the British could dare to challenge that monopoly. By 1600 the British were secure enough to constitute companies to manage that trade:

"The East India Company (EIC) was incorporated by royal charter in 1600. The charter granted a monopoly of all English trade in all lands washed by the Indian Ocean (from the southern tip of Africa, to Indonesia in the South Pacific). Unauthorized (British) interlopers were liable to forfeiture of ships and cargo. The company was managed by a governor and 24 directors chosen from its stockholders." [Paul Rittman: R&F]

Initially the East India company was focused on the lucrative Spice Trade, centered on what is now Indonesia. But in 1608 East India company Ships:

"first arrived in India, at the port of Surat, in 1608. In 1615, Thomas Roe reached the court of the Mughal Emperor, as the emissary of King James I, and gained for the British the right to establish a factory at Surat. Gradually the British eclipsed the Portuguese and over the years they saw a massive expansion of their trading operations in India. Numerous trading posts were established along the east and west coasts of India, and considerable English communities developed around the three main towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, with each of these three roughly equidistant from each other, along the coast of the Indian Ocean." [Paul Rittman: R&F]

Not equally of course. The Merchants who invested in these ships made the lions share of the loot. Even so for ordinary people and gentry (the little brothers of the nobility) becoming a Sea Dog could be a path to riches. But it could also be a path to death for ordinary seamen and their officers alike.

"Although the Spanish and Portuguese controlled the East Indies trade in the 1500s, the Dutch took it over from them in the 1600s. The Dutch were every bit as jealous about preserving these trade goods for themselves as the Spaniards and Portuguese were. The British were virtually excluded from the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) after the Amboina Massacre in 1623. That year, the Dutch Governor beheaded ten Englishmen, another ten Japanese mercenaries and a Portuguese merchant, at Amboyna on a charge of conspiring to seize the fort. Not able to defend itself against the Dutch, the company conceded that region to them, and focused instead on what must have been considered a consolation prize, India." [Paul Rittman: R&F]

Again the context is missing. James the 1st was already the King of Scotland. But he came to power during a Tory Resurgence. The English and their frenemies and new friends the Scots were joining together:

"In the early hours of 24 March 1603, Elizabeth I died at Richmond. The 'Virgin Queen' made no explicit provision for an heir, fearing that she might encourage faction within her kingdom. Yet James VI of Scotland was smoothly proclaimed as the new king. There was no opposition, but equally no immediate celebration. The London diarist John Manningham slyly noted that the proclamation was met with 'silent joye, noe great shouting', although there were bonfires and bell-ringing that evening as the announcement sank in. Three days later in Edinburgh, the king himself received the news with exultation." [http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Elizabeth/]

Queen Elizabeth fought the Spanish and Portuguese because she had to. King James was not afraid of a Spanish invasion. When the now united Scots and English "Brits" fought; it was for "God, King, Country and loot.

To be Continued with "A History of Loot" - Next Chapter

Rise and Fall of the British East India Company

http://www.paulrittman.com/EastIndiaCompany.pdf

Francis Drake Biography Explorer (c. 1540–1596)

http://www.biography.com/people/francis-drake-9278809

Or:

http://www.history.com/topics/exploration/francis-drake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hawkins_(naval_commander)

James and Elizabeth

http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Elizabeth/

Privateering and Piracy

Many Kinds of Privateering

An Ideology of Privateering

Many forms of Freebooting

Pirates and Privateers/Privatizing History

Origins of the East India Company

Bretton Woods, NeoColonialism and the "Money Men."

Origins of the East India Company

Corrupt Court and Undue Influence

East India Company and Islamic Jihad

Utility Versus the Pirates

Tribunals Admiralty Courts & Privateers