When we think of pirates we picture them with eye patches, bandanas and at sea. We often see them as having no connection to anything in our own times or outside the world's oceans. But there is a direct connection between:
Offshoots of Piracy | |
|
And on a more humorous note:
|
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:
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.
Because elections are a judicial process they should be run with best practices that embody the best and most appropriate judicial principles.
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.
There are five sets of Stakeholders in an election.
All these stakeholders need to be represented in the process, which is why elections need to be run as if a court.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
All this would be under oath. Perjury would be referred to an ordinary court.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
I love Bernie's plank. I love his effort on behalf of himself. I love Hillary. I love Hillary's effort on behalf of herself. I loathe our current primary process. I loathe that we don't have a movement pushing candidates across the board and that we still have folks who think we can dump both the Democratic party and the Republican party for a third party without ruinous consequences. I loathe that from my local party on to the top of the ticket, candidates can't afford to run for office unless they (or their volunteers) spend all their time raising money. It's nothing personal, it's just the corrupt habits of our country. What we are used to. We are like pigs who live in a stye. We got used to the smell. That's all.
"The rights and privileges of natural persons under this constitution originate in the right of the individual to himself, therefore these rights are the rights of natural persons." [Source: Henry George in the Condition of Labor]
"Any privileges of Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state derive from the people and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, as appropriate. These rights are not to be construed as inherent or inalienable but are privileges established to serve the public good."
All citizens shall have the right to participate in the political process, to vote in elections in their permanent domicile and to effective representation in Federal, State, and local governing entities.
All contributions of any person, or artificial entities to the political process must be publicly disclosed. Undisclosed contributions may be construed as bribery or undue influence with or without evidence of quid pro quo.
A Free Press being necessary to a Free Republic, all meetings and interactions of Government officials, elected or appointed, executive, Judiciary or Legislature; shall be recorded for posterity; and unless a compelling reason exists for the deliberations to be kept secret, shall be witnessed by members of the press and reasonable representation of the general public. Any records marked secret shall only be kept secret for the minimum appropriate time for such secrecy, and only those parts such as necessary to protect actual natural security shall be redacted when released before that time. The press shall be compensated for performing recording, reporting, archiving or witnessing efforts by the hour at the same hourly rate as the House of Representatives is compensated.
The President shall be elected by a majority of voters. If no candidate shall achieve 50% + 1 of the popular vote, then there shall be a run off election between the 2 candidates with the highest percentage of the vote.
The Post Office shall enable people to cast ballots through the Post Office in all jurisdictions where there is an election and shall accept ballots from 5 days before the election to Midnight of Election Day.
No Government, State, Federal or local may infringe on the right of citizens to cast their ballots within their neighborhoods and for each citizen to cast one vote in the elections of their permanent place of residence that have jurisdiction over them. Reasonable identification may be required and the security of ballots shall be protected. But no legitimate voter may be denied a vote due to improper challenges of their identity and no vote may be ignored or thrown out that was cast by a citizen without that citizen being notified and given a chance to make a correction.
The People shall have the right to vet all candidates for elective office and to require that they disclose relevant information on their fitness for office under oath. All elective and appointed offices shall be audited at the end of their term of office and the information reviewed by a bipartisan or non partisan panel and put into a report.
All Citizens and legal residents residing in the United States or its territories shall have the right to meaningful work and to be compensated for such work at a reasonable wage.
All Citizens and legal residents residing in the United States or its territories shall have the right to adequate shelter and to be secure in their possessions within such shelter from unreasonable search and seizure.
All natural persons residing in the United States or its territories shall have the right to adequate medical care
All Citizens and legal residents of the United States shall have the right to economic care during sickness, accident, old age, unemployment or infirmity.
The above is suggested language.
Background Notes
"This right of property, originating in the right of the individual to himself, is the only full and complete right of property. It attaches to things produced by labor, but cannot attach to things created by God." [Condition of Labor]
Said Henry George in a letter to Pope Leo XIII in response to Rerum Novarum in 1891. Of all the responses to Rerum Novarum his was the most electric & most enduring. Rerum Novarum was cited by Catholic groups around the world, incited Catholic Social Action but also was part of the creed of Mediterranean fascists in the 19th century. It started as a seemingly radical left doctrine, but because it also protected ownership of land, it became a conservative force for the next century and into the present. Henry argued against being branded a socialist. And the above quote was the basis for that argument
""To attach to things created by God the same right of private ownership that justly attaches to things produced by labor is to impair and deny the true rights of property. For a man who out of the proceeds of his labor is obliged to pay another man for the use of ocean or air or sunshine or soil, all of which are to men involved in the single term land, is in this deprived of his rightful property and thus robbed." [Condition of Labor]
We humans have a basic right to possess land, shelter, work-places, access to markets and transportation:
"While the right of ownership that justly attaches to things produced by labor cannot attach to land, there may attach to land a right of possession." [Condition of Labor]
But that right is not unalloyed, without limits:
“God has not granted the earth to mankind in general in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they please,” [Condition of Labor]
And there are logical and rational rules to such limits:
"regulations necessary for its best use may be fixed by human laws. But such regulations must conform to the moral law — must secure to all equal participation in the advantages of God’s general bounty." [Condition of Labor]
If man would apply moral law to the access to, control of and disposition of resources, we'd be in much better shape.
This post is part of a series intended to clarify how to write a second bill of rights and what should be in it in order to implement not only F.D. Roosevelt's vision, but the lessons of subsequent years. Obama proposed a constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United, but clearly that alone will only deal with one piece of the problem.
Modern privateers don't come across with eye patches or peg legs. And they don't wear fancy hats or run for President (except for the Donald) . They mostly work behind the scenes, with PR firms, "charitable donations" and paid think tanks doing their bidding. They run flotillas of law firms, PR firms, faux think tanks manned by men in suits. Sometimes they seem to even have convinced themselves that they are doing charity, doing good with their money, and that they are the "heros." But in reality these pirate fleets do as much or more, with the power of finance and undue influence, than their Sea Dog forebears ever could do. This is the case with education Anti-Reform. The only way you can sniff out who is in it for the public benefit is and who is doing "'private, separate advantage" and buccaneering, sometimes, is to dig into where the money is going.
|
Friends of mine constantly accuse various Democrats of being "neoliberal". The term has some definite meaning to it, and so I find their use of it to be sloppy, broad-brushing and usually defamatory. What it isn't is anything to do with the actual Democratic Party and it's ideology. It is a defamation of Democrats to call us "neo-liberal." The term has a real meaning and is used wrongly by those trolling us, who use it. They can call themselves intellectuals, but they are defaming the party and what it stands for when they call us that.
Privateers engage in the following:
Charles Koch recently wrote a defense of his efforts which he published on the Wall Street Journal in which he stated that he believed in basic principles that he claims define us country. For him these principles are:
..."the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself."
Okay, free society sounds good to me, too. But then he continues:
"Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government."
Wait a minute! He's talking about Democrats, Democratic rule, civil rights, etc ... We are the ones attacking equality before the law? The statistics show that racial oppression is still alive and well. The Koch sponsored ALEC has legitimized murder of innocent folks on the grounds of "Stand your Ground" laws. His funding of organizations fighting for prohibition/abolition of abortion rights has started people back on the road of back alley abortions and use of dangerous drugs to terminate pregnancies without a doctor, already starting to kill people in areas where they've closed all the Ob/Gyn clinics. Equality before the law? He's got that with Citizens United by the Supreme court giving his corporation all the private, separate advantage it could want to bribe and influence politicians with impunity. He funded the Federalist Society that put those court justices on the bench. If his principles are under government assault they are from his own groups.
So anyway, he sees this world, apparently, on the John Birch Society principles he was taught as a child. And he says he has been fighting for his principles.
"That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process."
50 years ago was 1964. So he seems to feel that somehow civil rights was an infringement on personal freedom, that Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty was a war on his personal freedom. So it seems to me that Charles Koch seems to have different definitions of all these terms than the rest of us. If he's been fighting government tyranny since 1964, who is his enemy? Is it the Federal Government, or those given protection starting in 1964? Women's liberation, civil rights, religious freedom, all have been growing since 1964. And as for an "enemy" his father put out a bounty on John F. Kennedy shortly before his death in 1964. So who is Koch fighting? The Kennedy Administration? (eww, yes).
"A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so."
I think we can all agree that a truly free society is based on respect for all people and what they value. Keyword is "all." If one only respects the values of a minority of wealthy people, or of a particular sect, that is not a truly free society. Unfortunately, if he's right that our society has been under attack, perhaps that accounts for the concentration of wealth and power and the oligarchic competition that has replaced a genuine free-market with a free-booting market. Unfortunately what the owners of a business do with their money usually is their own business and ought not to involve their business. When one is as powerful and controls so much business as the Koch's do, then one is no longer a simple "private enterprise" but has such market control that people can't avoid buying one's products even if they want to; unless they completely withdraw from the economy.
"The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens.
Except I don't see any evidence that the Obama administration disrespects his citizens, even the ones who disrespect him. But I do see evidence that the Koch's and others disrespect democracy, disrespect majority rule, and are aiming to strip voting and other rights from citizens, and seem to be wanting to transfer those powers to a money based election system. One dollar one vote.
The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism."
But who has the government been disrespecting for 50 years? The Koch's have gotten richer and richer. Their father passed away and now they live on a massive inheritance they themselves would not have earned without help. He quotes Jefferson:
"More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better."
Actually Jefferson's theories of Government were funded on Lockean principles of commonwealth and commonweal. A government "of the people, by the people and for the people" is a government where people run their own lives. Neither at the dictates of a CEO dictator or of a demagogic dictator. He also warned about the power of monopolistic companies like the East India Company -- or Koch industries -- and fought them during the 1790's and through his Presidency; and their undue influence on government. So, thus he's half right:
"The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster,"
....is only half true. The more bad governments try to control people, the greater the disaster. But health care is not a disaster, doesn't need to be a disaster. And if it becomes a disaster it's because privateers like Charles Koch have decided to aim the guns of their pirate ships on a basic public good.
"as shown by the current health-care debacle."
When the people work together we solve problems, mitigate issues and make things work better for all of us.
But what he disparages as "collectivism, are democratic republican values applied to our processes and institutions. If something is wrong feedback from the people can fix it. Democratic republican values involve improved processes, feedback and separation of powers. They are meant to mitigate dysfunction.
"Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means."
Charles Koch is projectioning here. His movement promises lottery winnings for some and hell for "losers" and delivers hell for the majority. Democracy is not about taking "the means of production" from his greedy little hands, though we'd be better off if more people owned their own productive assets and had the power to acquire and own their own lives. I don't think he would fear "collectivism so much" that he fears democracy itself, if he understood and valued the country as much as he claims he does. On the contrary he seems to have imbibed the strange idea, which his Ayn Rand teacher (and the John Birch Society) taught him, that democracy is a form of collectivism. So he is definitely projectioning:
"Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.)"
Charles Koch is under attack in the media because he and his brother are funding anti-democratic and corrupt organizations that are seeking to undermine our system. He may not get up and assault people personally, but Faux News, AEI, etc... have unleashed a constant barrage of personal attacks and false information about the ACA, about Democrats in general, and have done everything possible to defame, invent reasons to impeach, and block our current President. Thus his own folks are now the ones who engage in all the techniques and methods that he decries:
"This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers."
So Charles Koch, without realizing it, has become that which he hates; A despot. We can pray for a "Road to Damascus moment" but this is a man who operates an empire where he's the despot. We Democratic Republicans do have ideas that work. We aren't collectivists we are pragmatic and believe in the common weal which is an English Concept that is older than Marx. Even as he claims he is an enlightened one:
Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."
Indeed. Exactly my thought in listening to his apologia. His industries have a reputation for shipping tar sand oil, for piling up tailings and for polluting his environment. He may believe he's a paragon of environmentalism. But he funds folks dedicated to deregulation and to removing impediments to him making money. And his organizations are doing this down to the county level. Maybe he's like Marie Antoinette and doesn't know the details.
He continues: "Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:"
Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.
So one third of his employees are union members? Yet he supports organizations fighting Unions and fights the unions in his own companies when they try to organize.
Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies."
I'm sure they have. Revolving door anyone?
Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.
Nice.
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
Now isn't that ironic, considering he got his job because of his father.
Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.
Well we know which side of the Ethanol fight he's on.
Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.
Trouble is Charles, you may not realize it yourself. But you and your organizations are running people's lives. They are succeeding, especially at state and local level, in creating governments in your image, where businessmen run people's lives and in the name of "liberty" force women to have vaginal ultrasounds. You organized ALEC and it's anti-Abortion child organization, which write oppressive legislation and fight civil rights.
"If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too."
Please Charles, look in the mirror. The trouble with privateers is that they talk about how bad "government" is, but they are part of government, and they seem to want to be pirate captains who can loot with impunity, but never need to share the loot.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286
There are three kinds of property that determine society's prosperity. These are Land, Capital and labor.
These are the kinds of property that produce wealth.
However, for individuals, especially Westerners, what seems to be important is portable wealth. The more portable the better. The acquisitiveness of western people's is world in-famous. Tales of indigenous people pouring molten gold down the throats of captured conquistadors illustrate how others sometimes reacted to European adventurers seeking gold.
Treasure acquired by theft, usurpation, conversion or warfare is also known as loot. Piracy and warfare, in search of exchange goods, led to colonialization, creation of factories for growing trade goods, and later to factories for automated production. All this was designed to create loot for the pirate captains. The west coined a word for legalized piracy, it was called privateering. It is said that if you scratch the history of almost any family, you find pirates and crooks as the founders. If English speaking people look down on Mafia, it's not because we never had our own. It was known as the English Aristocracy, and later, the brotherhood of the coast. The first Navies for both the Brits and the USA were pirate fleets. Spanish & Portuguese power was driven by privateering. It was called colonialism, but it was really an outgrowth of piracy. The Spanish had no claim to America, they came in to loot it. The Dutch and other European Powers all sailed the world in search of riches. When they engaged in labor or capital expenditure, it was after loot, not the greater good.
People derive their sustenance and prosperity from a combination of ownership/rule and labor. Lincoln noted that capital comes from mixing labor with items taken from nature's bounty. "Labor is prior to Capital." Wealth is produced by such labor. Wealth is fixed to land; houses, buildings, improvements to property in general and put back into producing things. Wealth devoted to production is capital. When people own their own tools and property the result is widely spread modest prosperity. A society with a large middle class is secure and prosperous. There is room for wealthy people in a healthy society.
Wealth that is portable and exchangeable is known as "treasure". It may be used as capital, exchanged for consumable goods, or used to buy land properties. Henry George conceded that those who create wealth through capital have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. He considered the fruits of exertion or capital to be "earned income." Economic rent is unearned income. When people monopolize property and then charge rent to use it, that too is mostly unearned. Wealth acquired by fraud, usurpation or theft is also unearned. Indeed it is unmerited.
Yet vast wealth comes from lending, either directly or through investment. Accounting wealth involves the creation of theoretical instruments that produce fixed amounts of returns, "interest". Sometimes that wealth has nothing to do with reality except as a demand on others. When individuals do it, it's called usury, when States do it, it's called war, embargoes, or invasion. In any case, it's bad news, and has been known as such for centuries:
Aristotle is attributed to explaining it:
“The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of any modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.” [Quantum of Power]
Pioneers in Economics laid out the benefits of a well governed economic system years ago. But people prefer to fight, play king of the hill, and lord it over others. A well governed system under Democratic, Republican and Commonwealth principles is boring compared to one where people are always fighting. So there are always folks who prefer to be pirates and have it all, manipulate crews to fight for them, then bury the loot because they don't know what to do with it otherwise. Private people acting as government are privateers. Privateers are like the Tongue Eating Louse that eats the tongue of a fish and then takes a bite out of everything the fish tries to eat. Privateers create corporations that tried to rule the world: Rhodes in Rhodesia, the East India Company, J. P. Morgan. They become oligarchs because they are rarely competent to rule a country. They want loot, they don't really want the common-wealth of a country, the common business of a republic or a federation, or the annoyances of democracy.
Now the privateers of the United States are trying to implement oligarchy by dominating the GOP and raising one of their number to the Presidency.
I've got a lot more to say, but that's enough for this post.
The first thing I noticed was that successful pirates joined the gentry. Unsuccessful ones were hung. This is illustrated by the tale of Captain Kidd who was elevated to Captain "pirate style" and not due to his family relations like most officers during the 9 years war "War of the Grand Alliance" [1688-1697]:
"By 1689 he was a member of a French-English pirate crew that sailed in the Caribbean. Kidd and other members of the crew mutinied, ousted the captain off the ship, and sailed to the British colony of Nevis. There they renamed the ship Blessed William. Kidd became captain, either the result of an election of the ship's crew or because of appointment by Christopher Codrington, governor of the island of Nevis. Captain Kidd and Blessed William became part of a small fleet assembled by Codrington to defend Nevis from the French, with whom the English were at war."
They were granted "Letters of marquee by the Governor, because that is the way that the English paid for Naval Warfare:
"Kidd and his men attacked the French island of Mariegalante, destroyed the only town, and looted the area, gathering for themselves something around 2,000 pounds Sterling." [Wikipedia article makes a great first stop: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kidd]
Continuing the fight:
"Kidd captured an enemy privateer off the New England coast."
But of course the borders between piracy and privateering were thin:
"One year later [1690], Captain Robert Culliford, a notorious pirate, stole Kidd's ship while he was ashore at Antigua in the West Indies." [Wikipedia article makes a great first stop: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kidd]
When you read about Robert Culliford. Culliford partisans claim Kidd was a pirate and that Culliford started as Kidd's Shipmate and "repeatedly check[ed] the designs" through his career. According to them Culliford led a mutiny against Kid in 1790 and appointed William Mason as Captain. All the stories of these pirates are full of these sort of inconsistencies, including some of the official records. Having his prize taken from him didn't stop Kidd from migrating to New York and:
"On 16 May 1691, Kidd married Sarah Bradley Cox Oort, an English woman in her early twenties, who had already been twice widowed and was one of the wealthiest women in New York, largely because of her inheritance from her first husband."
Privateering and piracy were means to wealth and respectability. From 1692-1697 the Governor of New York was Benjamin Fletcher, who traded in both privateering and pirate loot. Kidd contributed to Trinity Church, New York which was funded by privateering and pirate activity. Apparently New York City and Philadelphia were rivals in the Pirate trade during that time too. In 1697 Fletcher was deposed from the Governorship by Edward Randolph who is also famous for revoking the Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and who the Boston revolt in 1689 was jailed. It appears that one mans "privateer" and hero could easily be tried as another's pirate -- unless he was part of an important family like the Randolphs. Edward Randolph tried to revoke the charters of all the colonies in 1700 and was defeated. [Britannica: Edward Randolph
Culliford was caught after robbing the Great Mohammed in the Red Sea in September 1698 but pardoned and "disappeared" from history (probably settled down and changed his name or into anonymity). William Mason retired a rich man. Web Sites like The Pirate King may_william.htm depict them as pirates, but the reality is that they straddled the line between respectability and piracy as did, apparently, most of the ships and crews of those privateering times, and probably many of the ships of the Royal Navy. If they'd taken the "Great Mohammed" one year earlier the prize probably would have been legal. In 1698 the war was over.
So it's not surprising that pinning down these characters, or even their names, was hard. They went to sea to make money. And whether that money came from looting ships, smuggling, delivering slaves to plantations, or catching fish or whales didn't matter so much as the prizes of wealth and respectability. Many of them became adrenaline junkies (like Blackbeard is said to have done) and perished. But many more retired in the end to quiet lives and wealthy family legacies. Next time I go into Trinity Church I'll think of Captain Kidd.
The British weren't going to punish their privateering warriors in time of warfare. But if they didn't stop when the war was ended they were in trouble diplomatically. William Kidd probably didn't know the war was over when he overstepped his bounds:
"in January 1698, Kidd's luck seemingly changed when he caught sight of the Quedagh Merchant rounding the tip of India.
The war was over. English privateers were not supposed to be preying on ships on the open ocean.
"The Quedagh Merchant was no ordinary vessel. A 500-ton Armenian ship, it carried goods—a treasure trove of gold, silk, spices, and other riches—that were owned in part by a minister at the court of the Indian Grand Moghul. The minister had powerful connections, and when news about Kidd's attack reached him he complained to the East India Company, the large and influential English trading firm. Coupled with many governments' shifting perceptions of piracy, Kidd was quickly cast as a wanted criminal."
Kidds mistake was to try to clear his name. What he should have done was what his rivals; Mason and Culliford did; quietly go to ground. If he had his name would probably be on the list of famous and wealthy families in the United States history books. And his descendants captains of industry and finance. But by trying to clear his name he got himself put on the Gimlet. On the other hand, folks wonder where his treasure went. I would suggest they ask descendents of Sarah Bradley Cox Oort who I'm sure he took care of before trying to clear his name. Buried treasure? Yeah, sure.
The term "Tory" comes from a Celtic Root, thru the Irish,
"toraidhe ‘outlaw, highwayman,’ from tóir ‘pursue.’" [Multiple Dictionaries]
When we think of pirates we picture them with eye patches, bandanas or fancy head-dresses, but pirates are anyone who uses property without the permission of its rightful owners. Privateers are pirates who use war and the political system to make their thefts, usurpations and conversions legal. That broader definition has been used since the beginning. Piracy is in the eye of the Beholder.
When we think of pirates we picture them with eye patches, bandanas and at sea. But the word buccaneer comes from people raising cattle and making leather. While a pirate is a thief who sails the seas. Brigand is a pirate but also a generic term for a thief who can be on land. Pirates and thieves are outlaws -- unless they have a permit to steal. Then they are called privateers.
Pirates and privateers have operated in the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, the black sea, the Caspian, the Baltic Sea, the Atlantic, Pacific, every ocean and many lakes around the world.
Pirates and privateers engage in private warfare. The term when that private warfare is conducted on land is "filibustering." A Filibusterer was a soldier in a private army operating on land. Sometimes they were also mercenaries -- who are soldiers who work for a private force. Piracy and privateering have always been a feature of war and conflict. From:
In Pirates of the Caribbean, it looks like the Pirates are fighting the British Navy, but they really were fighting the East India Company, which was a rival pirate gang, but perfectly legal. Ironically, our revolution started as a fight against the East India Company too. The "Tea Parties" were about a Government sanctioned effort to take over and monopolize the tea trade by putting competitors out of business with artificially low prices on British carried tea, and taxes on American Ships. There is some evidence that the first American colonies were founded as pirate refuges.
Piracy and land hunger go together. The Saxons who invaded in Britain were hungry for farms. The Vikings were hungry for land. The settlers of the Americas from Eurasia, were property hungry; land, loot, slaves, wealth, likewise. Privateering is about acquiring property.
The distinction between privateers and pirates has always been a parsed legal one. American "filibusters", like the Walkers, Texans, Jacksons, etc.... were considered pirates by the Spanish speaking people they plagued. The privateer may have a legal permit from his own country --> but he is waging war and war is violent and illegal in the fundamental moral sense. from the Point of view of the people we were attacking.
Pirates, profiteers, and the industries who inherit their traditions, may be perfectly legal, but they are amoral to immoral buzzards who violate norms and do things that ought to be illegal
Privateering companies are no better than pirate fleets, except they are somewhat constrained by laws. When they engage in theft, smuggling, private warfare, as part of a war or under some legal permit. So when the Government says that theft is legal, it is privateering. When people don't bother to get "clothed in the law" and engage in naked robbery of some kind, it is piracy. Privateers get to hang pirates.
I see Privateering as an ideology. I explained in a post first written in 2014:
Thus, modern pirates are people who sell copies of movies or songs without paying royalties to their legal owners. Modern privateers setup abusive contracts to acquire such ownership. Thus modern pirates are usually dressed in fancy Armani or other well tailored suites, carry portfolios and have degrees from classy law schools, and are legally privateers not pirates. The victims, on the other hand, may have actually written the song they are charged with piracy for using. An abusive contract can take ownership of things like authorship, that no person can really sell, since selling the rights to a work doesn't change who wrote it. But modern pirates don't usually have peg legs anymore. It is much safer to bribe a judge or pay a legislator to change the law.
For example in our system if one reproduces music without the permission of the corporate owner, even if you were the author. You are a pirate. The USA constitution gives people rights to inventions and writings for limited times for the purpose of stimulating commerce. Privateers lobbied to expand the time patents and copyrights operate long enough so they become virtual titles of nobility. Intellectual property, if it existed, should be the property of the inventor. Under the power of corrupt lobbying and influence pedaling, intellectual property becomes a rental property of giant conglomerates and wealthy individuals. No longer a connection to invention and no longer a limited right with a limited term. That is who privateering works.
Most of us are used to them the way someone gets used to living in a pig-sty. This post is about some alternatives. But first we have to identify the real pirates.
The biggest pirates have usually dressed better than the drifters and thieves that get labeled as pirates. If they aren't lawyers they can afford them. Worse, they can usually afford (or are) politicians. They can write the law. The term for this was "privateer" in the past. Modern Letter of Marquees come in the form of Corporate Charters or their ability to acquire patents, trade-marks, copyrights, from the creators. Modern pirates hang the hapless as pirates. They are known to sue and take the money of artists who made the mistake of selling their original work to them. That the original work belongs to them by basic right and can't be sold legitimately, doesn't matter to the pirates. They write the laws. They are privateers.
Privateering is the right word because it is when the government grants a right of private government to an individual or hierarchy bound by contract [corporation]. Privateering is based on privatizing basic public function and enables profiteering, private warfare, smuggling, swindle and theft, all perfectly legal because the law has been modified to make it so.
This post is about privateering and the money power. The subject is frequently distorted by cultlike arguments, but the reality is that our system of inequality, of periodic economic failure, is based on grifting and cons that depend on privatized money.
Of course the most lucrative way to loot everyone, is to issue privatized money. Whether it is bit coin or fly by night banks, the goal is the same, to legally counterfeit money! Letting Wall street or private Pirates using banks to coin money as debt is an economy wrecker and that is the subject of this post.
 |
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 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.
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]
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
We are being told that the government doesn't have enough money for the things people need and that the only sane alternative is austerity for the common folks. Of course the people telling this are granting themselves privileges and additional control over the money supply and economic resources. We are told our taxes are onerous in order to pay for those things. But then their tax cutting proposals involve austerity and hurt 98% of us while enabling them to pocket more money, buy back stock and maybe buy an extra Yacht without paying taxes. They are obviously lying, but even beyond that dishonest hypocrisy. The premise is a lie. Economists have known since Alfred Maynard Keynes, (at least) that austerity hurts the economy and that government spending stimulates it.
In A Republic, the economy is "our thing" [see: Definitions], Res-Publica. In a Republic, Supreme power is held by the people through their representatives. Therefore because the money power, which in any state belongs to the sovereign therefore theoretically must belong to the people.
We are supposed to be sovereign over our own currency. Unfortunately, ever since the realization that there is never enough Gold or silver in the world to inflate an economy, countries have relied on borrowing for their money. The result is that few societies are in fact sovereign over their own money supply. In some cases it is because banks control the money supply and not the national treasury. In others it is because external countries do.
There are all sorts of theoretical movements that would change this. But most are confusing because they confuse how things actually are with how they should be. But the first step is to decouple money from privateering. The people of a region need to have some control over their money supply. Balancing Budgets is not responsible behavior, but printing money recklessly isn't either. So what should we do?
A considerable body of theory has developed over time that demonstrates fallacies in how the money supply is created and used. Ignoring any part of that body of experience leads to disaster. Let me summarize some of that body:
The conclusion from these observations is that money as notes issued by a treasury for the benefit of the people as a whole, is probably the best money,...
But there are caveats. The government can't just print money in any quantity without consequence. Money has to be backed by economic activity. It is an investment in the economy by the Government. Benjamin Franklin suggested that notes be printed backed by real estate. But he didn't really understand that notes that are used in one place have to have similar value elsewhere.
Money has to be a unit of account backed by the ability to buy things and pay bills and taxes. That means it has to be "legal tender" for all debts public and private, and of a universal and fixed value.
The people have to be sovereign over its value. When money is issued to pay for bridges and roads, to keep farmers farming and merchants selling, it benefits the whole economy. But whenever the Government spends money into existence it is creating privilege, so that privilege has to either be taxed back or it will be leverage into more privilege and power.
Studies show that private debt drives the business cycle more than public debt. Worse, private debt is driven up when money is scarce and wealth is concentrated. When people can no longer borrow, they can no longer buy, invest and they lose wealth they earned previously due to debt. Thus whenever we are using note money we have to use taxation to tax back excess money and reduce hoarding and to reduce the depredations created by inequality. That implies progressive taxation.
When whole nations are treated like scofflaw debtors, that drives austerity. Austerity creates degrading spirals of dysfunction. Nations need to ensure that money, created, goes into actual capital and actual labor. The value of the money in a country reflects the prosperity of that country and all its people. It also drives it.
If a Republic does not control its own money supply, then something is wrong with that Republic. It has become a tyranny run for "private separate advantage." In our current times, there is a degree of tyranny in much of the world, due to this being the case. We are so used to it we take it for granted. Those who have the strongest opinions about this feel jealousy, personalize and miscast the nature of this tyranny. It is not personal, it is a systemic problem. We could eliminate sovereign and individual debt issues worldwide by the simple expedient of allowing a part (or all) of national and state debt, everywhere, to be floated via the money supply rather than converted into bonds. Let the money float the economy, then tax back some of the benefits.
If a republic lacks power over its money supply then it is not fully Sovereign. However, Republics, all through history have not had power over their money supply, either because merchants would only accept gold or silver as payment, or because those who controlled the Gold or Silver had leant them money that was owed and the money they used was little better than IOU notes backed by debt owned by the State's Oligarchs or King. The use of commodity money and debt money is a drag on the world's economy. Debt is useful as an instrument for saving, but the money supply should be as sovereign as the term "all debts private and public" implies. Budgets should balance over the long term - a balance of non-interest bearing notes outstanding that is necessary to drive the economy.
Of course for Money to be fully Republican, the republicans have to be democratic republicans not Plutocratic ones.
