Covered in the previous post was the concept that since capitalism involves production then the normative goal of profits should be to perpetuate production. Using profit for capital improvements or simply to buy stuff encourages production; so, too, does investment into research and development. Using profits to invest into futures trading or even into companies where the production occurs abroad and capital is being generated by disparate market equilibriums between goods and labor does not fit a normative goal for capitalism.
Neither does hoarding your profits, which only can be done through some government provisions such as currency or a banking system, and passing them on as an inheritance to individuals without rewarding any production in return. This relates to two news items of the past week.
One had to do with the good will of a farmer in Minnesota donating millions to different institutions in his town, such as the fire department and churches. This farmer, perhaps unwittingly, is being true to capitalism. If you produce much you are entitle to consume much. If you rather save now to consume later, well, that’s fine too thanks to the virtues of government-provided currency. Hoarding the fruits of production to pass on to a future generation creates two problems for capitalism.
One is that an inheritance does not reward production, in fact it is a disincentive for production, as why should one produce when they can consume from someone else’s earned productivity? At least that is the argument that many a free market libertarian, a few of them basking in inherited wealth, would use against government entitlements. If the shoe fits ….
This relates to another news story this week, that economists were divided over whether or not the Bush tax cuts should be maintained, or whether the whole tax code really needs to be revamped. As I have argued on here before, the tax code needs to be revamped, precisely to be simplified. Embedded in our complicated code is the opportunity to pay less tax on some types of capital gains than for wages. I don’t care whether the capital gain taxes are 50, 5 or 0.5 percent, they need to be greater than the wage tax for even the richest wage earners if the focus of our economy, what we encourage, is to be productivity … or capitalism for that matter. For that matter, inheritance taxes … oh, excuse me, death taxes … should be higher than the highest capital gains taxes.
The other problem created for capitalism when profits undermine productivity through inheritance, taxes or any other means relates to that old economic chestnut: “too many dollars chasing too few goods.” Monetarists, and Friedman cultists are quick to point this out for monetary policy, as well they should. They seem to have acquired a (laissez faire) mental block as to how this relates just as well to fiscal policy. Concentrated wealth leads to well-documented spending cascades. Not for stuff like computers that can be produced abroad, mind you. No, spending cascades effect most the stuff that have to be produced at home. You know, stuff like housing, health care and education, the most expensive yet essential stuff, inflated in value because of concentrated wealth.
Concentrated wealth begs the question of how that wealth gets concentrated. There’s many a free market libertarian out there who will defend that concentrated wealth relates to producing goods and labor of greater value. Bull****. The richer you are in this country the greater the proportion of your wealth comes from investments rather than production; the greater the proportion comes from inheritance; the greater the proportion comes from futures trading or flipping houses; the greater the proportion comes from some type of boondoggle that can only occur through the grace of government.
That’s why the farmer in Minnesota did precisely what he should have with his hoarded savings. Of course, he probably was spurred by his conscious rather than capitalism. To that I say all the better, and what a great lesson for Christmas.
Tags: Economic Misinformation, Free Market Merit, Middle Class Economics
Capitalism in its pure, unadulterated form, its operational definition before laissez faire economists and free market libertarians make adjustments and excuses to fit actual practice to the meaning, is private production that generates profits. I have covered the problems with “private” and “production” in a laissez faire, corporate economy. Now let’s examine profit, the capital in capitalism.
Private production can be viewed as the means and profit the end of an economic system. However, profit itself is just a placeholder for other ends, unless we are to use profit like Uncle Scrooge uses the money bags in his vault. The potential beauty of capitalism is profit can be used to self-perpetuate the system. Investing profit into private production creates new and better production, which in turn creates new profit, which in turn creates new and better production, etc. Unfortunately, when wealth has been equated with trade and we are not to even consider or question why, the purpose of profit is to invest specifically in trade rather than production. Futures trading becomes as legitimate as manufacturing for capitalism, even though no production is involved.
Some economists subtly substitute property for production in the capitalism model. One can understand why for a corporate economy. Certainly production cannot be wholly privatized for a corporation, let us shift the focus towards property instead so we can feel a little more comfortable about the term “private.” Yet once we enter profit into the equation property is no more private than production in a corporate economy. Even Locke, who claimed property to be a natural right, pointed out the necessity of government in order to store or horde property, otherwise property under natural conditions is simply “use it or lose it.”
Profit is the first step towards storing or hording property. Once we replace production with property in the capitalism model then the end of profits is indeed to accumulate property. That may be precisely the reason for such an adjustment, in addition to fitting so much nicer with trade as the generator of wealth. After all, it’s such a bother to actually have to produce something when you can obtain profits instead by just changing the value of existing property.
Yet now you no longer have a self-perpetuating system. You have either an inflated or destabilized system or both as a result of “too many (profit) dollars chasing too few (produced) goods.” Indeed, you no longer have capitalism save for the excuses made by certain economists and, in truth, on a large scale where nation states become necessary, we never have.
Tags: Economic Misinformation, Free Market Merit, Middle Class Economics
Sorry for the lag time in posts. I’m involved in a very ambitious project which I will share with you shortly. To recap this series on capitalism: capitalism is private production that generates profits. Capitalism has existed at a small scale, but not at a large scale, despite the adjustments/excuses that grand economic scholars make to fit actual practice to the meaning of the term. One obvious reason is the huge role nation states plays to enable corporations to succeed (generally at the expense of proprietors). But even if we allow for the excuses free market libertarians and laissez faire economists make to fit the necessary role of government for corporations into a “capitalist” model there remains a big problem with the production part of the equation.
The three big questions of economics, as economists would tell it, are “what,” “how” and “how much” in terms of resource distribution. The glaring omission is “why,” omitted because there is allegedly no debate in the matter. In reality there are three ingredients to this “why” we distribute resources, all of them with an alternative. Wealth is considered the measuring stick of resources, so we desire to distribute resources in a fashion that increases wealth. Trade in turn has been dogmatically determined to be the means by which we assess wealth. Hence, we desire to distribute resources in a way that increases trade. Finally, most economists ascribe to a utilitarian philosophy of maximizing increases in wealth/trade.
The problem is, none of these reasons of why we distribute resources, not to be examined or questioned by us ordinary lay folk, relates directly to production. In fact, blind obsession to these dogmatic reasons “why” has led us away from production. Trading antiques has nothing to do with production. Futures trading has nothing to do with production. Flipping houses has little to do with production. Much of the capital generated by the insurance industry has nothing to do with production. Exploiting imbalances in goods and labor markets globally has little to do with our own production, even as capital floods in from it.
This is why the financial sector has expanded at twice the rate of our overall productivity since the seventies. Our version of “capitalism” exists by counterfeiting capital, in a manner that tends to be concentrated upwards to create great wealth disparity.
It’s time to integrate the “why” question of economics into the textbooks, to put front and center that there are indeed different “whys” with different consequences, rather than spoon feed a gullible public the excuses laissez faire economists make for their fantasy views of free markets and capitalism.
Tags: Economic Misinformation, Free Market Merit, Middle Class Economics
This is the second part of the “Why Capitalism Has Yet to Succeed” series. I added the caveat “at a large scale” because, in truth, capitalism can and has succeeded at a small scale. An example of that is where they use BerkShares, close by to where I live. BerkShares are local currency for the Berkshires.
There are many free market libertarians that bemoan the Federal Reserve because of their control of currency independent of a gold standard. One reason they favor a gold standard is the stability this would bring to a global economy, leaving the capricious monetary and fiscal policies of governments out of the equation. In the quest for this stability the Federal Reserve is often branded as usurping our liberty with their capricious role in monetary policy. Were that the real concern then free market libertarians would promote something similar to BerkShares, local currency, rather than a gold standard where the control for what labor and goods are really worth are even farther removed from the locality where they are generated.
As mentioned last time there is disagreement over what capitalism means, with adjustments to the basic model that amount to excuses being made to fit practice to theory. Yet with local currency and proprietors you have practice fitting theory quite well without any add-ons or excuses being made to the definition of capitalism. There is privately owned production generating profits without even the government interference involved in currency. Granted, legal proprietors have government licensing and some accompanying protections, but the important thing is these could be removed and the proprietorship model could still function, unlike the corporate model.
It is important to acknowledge how capitalism can and does exist on a small scale in order to best expose the adjustments/excuses being made for the meaning of “capitalism” on a large scale.
Few economists would agree with the title of this post. Yet, as I often proudly proclaim, I’m no economist. I’m an empiricist, and as such I take seriously the literal meanings of words, or the basic models of concepts. There is disagreement even among economists over the meaning of capitalism; some of that disagreement is really based on what I will establish here, that if you take the most basic model of what capitalism means it never existed, hence, could not have succeeded. This leads folks to come up with adjustments (excuses) to the meaning in order to talk about capitalism as something that does exist and succeed.
This post is just to cover the basic meaning/model. Future posts will address why it has yet to succeed, at least at a large scale.
Capitalism involves the private ownership of production that generates profit. The three key words here are private, production and profit. There is some alternative views that focus on property rather than production, a significant substitution at that, but production is needed for any kind of economy to function. As we know from nomadic cultures the same absolute does not apply to property.
There are other extensions of this besides property that are tautological as well. Because we have pursued capitalism in certain ways we incorporate that into the definition. An example would be to extend private ownership to mean private investors or stockholders. These are ways to pursue capitalism but, despite what your favorite free market libertarian think tank might be selling you, are not integral to the basic model or definition except by tautological designation: “We’ve done it that way so that’s the way it is.”
Most folks, even laissez faire economists, acknowledge there have been some practical problems with the “private” part of capitalism. I’ve certainly elaborated on just how much government suckling a “private” corporation needs to exist and to succeed. But there have been problems with all three elements–private, production and profits–that effectively prevented capitalism from ever yet existing at a large scale.
Let me expose my bias from the start. I’m staunchly for free markets, which unfortunately are not possible with a corporate economy. Capitalism I could take or leave, based on how you want to define and apply the profits part of the equation. Future posts will uncover why “taking” or “leaving” capitalism are not possible choices because capitalism never has existed by strict definition and, hence, has yet to succeed.
This is the next entry excerpted from my Goodreads blog, about my first experience with a Print on Demand provider. ALC = Author’s Learning Curve.
I approached my first POD publisher for Systems out of Balance in December of 2008. As a newbie to PayPal I had trouble getting it to work in acquiring his services, which proved to be fortuitous. In the meantime we had a few long chats over the phone. I am sure he thought we had compatible views until I asked him how old he was.
He had been complaining about college campuses as a hotbed of radicalism. I’m old enough to remember what colleges were like in the sixties and seventies and so I asked, with unmasked incredulity, how old he was (he was 35). This “youngster” demonstrated one of the ways in which the American public has been gullible. We are convinced by “information” providers that a certain trend has occurred (such as socialism) when the empirical data reveals just the opposite.
He was offended at my question, with some justifiable cause. I did not mean to laugh. I dropped him for other reasons than being naive though, as they say, everything is connected.
Tags: Author's Learning Curve
Ever hear the phrase “don’t spit into the wind?” Well, Pop’s got his own version of that based on his sea experiences.
Most any sailor boy could tell which Yacht was about to “drop anchor” by her “lines”. We were familiar with them all, and if a strange one came in we would look at their “house Flag”, rush into Parkers (A Ships Chandlers) and look it up in “The Book”. I most always hopped into a rowboat and rowed out to look under her stern, where her name and home port were painted, and to see in any of my “former shipmates” were aboard, where they had just come from and where they were going, and of course I also was interested to know if they were “shorthanded” in case I decided to quit whatever I was doing and go to sea again, which was quite often.
My very first trip at Sea was a very embarrassing one. I was asked by one of the cooks to throw (heave) some garbage over the side. I rushed to the rail and threw it right INTO the wind and spattered the whole side of the Yacht, plus the Mahogany rails, the Gangway, the brasswork and what have you. The rest of the sailors yelled in derision “look and the landlubber”, but the First Mate kindly explained to me that I should watch the Flag (wind pennant) and throw it in the direction that was blowing, and if it was drooping and I could not tell any other way to just “wet my finger” and hold it up, so I did not make THAT mistake again, although I made a few others before I became a “full fledged salt”. You learn to know the Sea AND to respect it in a very short time or else you just don’t survive. As a rule Yachts never ventured out into storms but in those days we did not have the weather information that we have today and quite often got caught in some “beauts”. Mackerel Skies and Mares Tails were about all the warning we had.
The danger is not so bad on the Steam and Diesel Yachts but on the Large Schooners and I was on two of those, it is pure disaster not to keep your eyes open. The most dangerous thing is that sometimes the wind changes direction before even the Captain can sense it and the Schooners sails catch the wind in the opposite direction and the ship “comes about” all by itself. When this happens “the Mainsail and the Mainboom, just cracks and sweeps across the deck and takes everything in its path and that includes the sailors if they are not ready to duck. Since the boom is a foot and a half or more through and is made of hardwood, a man’s body, skull or what have you would be in quite poor shape even if he were not swept “overboard”. The three most dreaded things at Sea are “Man overboard”, Fire and Fog in that order. I have been “overboard” a few times myself, but nothing dangerous, just that at times in a “heavy sea” the Coxwain of the Launch would sometimes misjudge and hit the Gangway headon.
Since besides the Coxwain of the Launch there is also a Bowhand and a Stomhand, to catch the gangway and hold the launch while the guests are stepping onto the Gangway, IF you happened to be the Bowhand and the Coxwain misjudged and hit the Gangway headon instead of “comeing alongside” you were quite apt to go flying into the ocean. This of course was very amuseing to the Guests but I must say not to myself, as I had to swim back to the Gangway and was quite thoroughly drenched. As I mentioned once before in one of my letters this happened to me and the Madames Poodle once up in Nova Scotia (where the water is far from warm). I not only had to haul myself aboard but the damned dog. It was one of those opportunities missed in life. The Madame thanked me kindly but the Captain said that if I had sense enough to let “the damned mop drowned” that the “old man” would have written me out a check for a “few Grand”. However it must have been “kind to animals week” or something as I threw the “little bugger” up onto the Gangway to another sailor waiting to catch him and then got aboard myself. Dogs first, sailors last in that case you know. It DID have its compensations, besides the thanks from the Madame, I got warmed up and dried out in the Engineroom, and The Chief Engineer gave me a couple of slugs of the owners whiskey to help the warming process.
Speaking of THAT reminds me that we used to take great delight in outwitting the Customs officials. When we came back from a Canadian Cruise, we were well stocked up. Canada having no such foolish laws as we had in Prohibition times was quite glad to see that we were well supplied with Johnny Walker Black Label. This we hid in our Sea boots. The Customs Officials came aboard in Bar Harbor, Seal Harbor, Northeast Harbor or wherever we dropped anchor first when we came home, and being the “landlubbers” that they were they immediately proceeded to inspect our lockers, the storerooms, saillockers and all such places, but never gave a thought to our Sea boots that were hanging in our lockers. I don’t suppose they had ever had on Oilskins and Sea boots in their lives so just could not understand that they just might be excellent hideing places. We hung our boots up by their straps and each boot would hold several quarts. They were looking right at the boots, but never gave a thought to reaching their arms down inside of them. Good thing for us that they did not. The fine would have been paid for by the owner no doubt, BUT our hard earned money would have gone over the side in a hurry, or rather some easy earned money perhaps I should say. I think we (lawless chaps huh) paid less than $2 for it in Canada at the time and many a dry lounge was lolling out waiting for us to get ashore and eager and willing to give us a “ten spot” for a Johnny Walker.
However I have a faint suspicion that it was not our imagined cleverness that prevailed anyway. I am quite sure that “the owners” greased a few palms to see that not only he, but us also were left alone, and I KNOW as I quite often tended the Gangway when they were leaveing, that their “clean bill of health Sir” to the owner came from a “whiskey laden breath”, so I presume that they were as dry as our fellow citizens who were awaiting us ashore.
The Coast Guard Cutters, now there was a different breed and I am quite sure that if we had the misfortune to run into any of THEM, that I would have immediately heaved Sea boots and all over the side in a hurry. Uncle Sam had some really dedicated servants in those days, instead of the “pork barrel pay off” officials of today. Customs Officials were also working for the Government but for the most part came from the locality they were operateing in and did not have the dedication and the experience of the Coast Guard. A fine group of Seamen these chaps are, and that applies to this day also. I think they are far better sailors than us deep water men, as they work the rugged Coasts, around dangerous Reefs, and their training is aboard a Square Rigger and they really get to know ships and the Sea from all its dangerous angles. Anyway
I personally will always give “a tip of o me hat” to the United States Coast Guard, and its fine seamen.
There I have gone on and on, and as usual you took me back over the years and made me young again. I can almost smell the salt this morning thanks to you. We enjoyed you and the Mrs. tremendously as usual, and if all goes will I shall say hello to you on your own soil on July the 7th. I always “swore to High Heaven” that I never would get into a plane, so you see I am being a brave man for Newton. Snakes and Planes I hate. Snakes I don’t know why, planes because I have seen so many of them plunge into the sea in flames and Fire is something that I have no love for either, having with my Mother just escaped alive from a 14 room Farmhouse in Maine when I was practically an infant. No Fire Department, no Phone and no water except a Spring. We just barely made it out and my Parrott and cat and Dog did not, and I can still see Mother in her nightgown, hanging onto me, and running to the next neighbor a mile or so away and the grass burning on each side of the road.
So until 11 A. M. on July the 7th, when I hope to disembark at Des Moines, I’ll say “so long for now.”
Sincerely,
Leon
Tags: Pop's Letters
K-species is ecological jargon for a population growth pattern that hovers in balance around the carrying capacity of the environment. At the other end of the survival strategy spectrum are r-species, which colonize rapidly ahead of the competition, but because of this go through a series of booms and busts. Many k-species rely on social survival strategies. Naturally, we are one of them. Multinational corporations on the other hand behave like bacteria, weeds and vermin, attempting to maximize individual production and consumption.
Our natural rights distinguish us from bacteria, bees, wolves and robots. (From The Five Forgotten Truths, in development)
In addition to not being bacteria our natural rights distinguish us from bees, which do not have free will. Our natural rights distinguish us from wolves, which cannot as readily adapt to new environments and changing conditions. Our natural rights distinguish us from robots, which could feasibly be designed to emulate human behavior and thinking, but not through choice. Taken collectively our natural rights are, once again, our human trademarks.
Tags: Annotated Quotes, Natural Rights
Here is part two of the letter started last week. More on Bar Harbor and rich lifestyles.
Anyway The arrival of The Bar Harbor Express was quite an event with all the Porters, personal servants, luggage, pets and what have you, and the cars were something to see Rolls Royce, Packards, Marmons, Buicks, and Pierce Arrows led the field with an occasional Locomobile, or Stanley Steamer or Franklin, plus a few Foreign makes. One family, The Livingstones I believe it was had a Coach, with either four or six horses and two footmen rideing on the back. They (as you said some did) if I remember right arrived in a Private Yacht.
Seal Harbor was Fords Estate, and Northeast Harbor is Rockefellers Estate, both tremendous place, and all the roads that you ride over when you cover Caddilac Mt, The Ocean Drive Etc were built by Rockerfellers millions, and almost immediately after they were built Gas went up a couple of cents all over the Country so you MIGHT say that you and I build em Huh?
One of my various jobs as I told you last week was digging the sewer into the Rockerfeller Estate, standing in water and mud up to my knees with a mouthful of ulcerated teeth. Those were the days when (was it Elliot of Harvard) used to come around and look into our dinner boxes, and then write wrathful articles about workingmen having Apple pie in their dinner pails. A hunk of black bread was good enough for us in HIS estimation. We were being spoiled beyond all reason he said. THAT is why we now have Jimmy Hoffa and the Dave Becks Etc on our backs. Out of such things Unions were started, and a good thing too, but they have now gotten to be TOO much of a good thing. Now BOTH Capital and Union is on the backs of the Middle Class and I don’t know how much longer we can shoulder the burden.
Yes I guess I was a Sailor Bum. In this June 22nd issue of Sports Illustrated in the article “72 hours of terror” in which my Son Pete is quite prominently mentioned, ONE of the mentions says formerly a “climbing bum.” One by land and one by Sea Huh? He can have his damn Mountains, I’ll take the “Briny Deep” any day.
For sure I would not stay put anywhere when I was young, or even when I was not young. Newton Mfg. Co has kept me busy for some 16 years now, and previous to that my longest job was The U. S. Navy for four years. I even drove “The King of the Bootleggers” in Maine at one time. DON’T get alarmed. He had long since retired when I drove him, and in my estimation it was not a crime anyway and there were a lot of others that felt the same way, or else the Law would never have been repealed. His name was Dan Hurley, a fine Irishman. If you get to talk to any of the natives in Bar Harbor sometime that are still around from that era, ask them about him. HE never drank a drop of liquor in his life or ever touched his hand to a bottle, but he made a pile of dough hireing someone else to “run it” for him, and if any of his men got caught he paid their families $100 a week for all the time they were in jail (usually 6 months) and they “had a ball” anyway. The Sherriffs name was Ward Wescott and he loved his prisoners like they were his children.
How I happened to go to work for Mr. Hurley was that I was a $7 a week clerk in the A&P Store in Bar Harbor, and Mrs. Hurley always asked that I and only I wait on her. One day she asked me how much I got paid and I told her $7 a week and she said “how would you like to go to work for Mr. Hurley for $25 a week.” I WILL admit that I was “a bit leary” as I did not even know the man at that time except that I had heard he was a retired bootlegger. She could see my hesitation and said “Leon, Mr. Hurley is going to build one of the finest Ballrooms in the East at the top of Irisons Hill in Salisbury Cove (right above Bar Harbor) and he needs someone to drive him back and forth, and to sleep there and clean up after the dances, and I wish you would come down this evening and talk to him” SO I did. As I left the house Mrs. Hurley called to me and said “did you ever go to Sea Leon” and I said Yes Man I have and she said “I just knew it as I watched you roll down the walk, you walk just like a sailor.” To cut this short which is not of much interest to you probably, I worked for several Months, he even bought me a car of my own, BUT when the big Yachts began to drop Anchor in the Harbor, I found out where they were going and if they were going somewhere I had not been, I just HAD to go, so I left Mr. Hurley. He was quite peeved and I did not blame him, but I just could not resist a chance to come across The Great Lakes, on up to Cape Breton Island and all around and then South for the winter.
I see in your letter that you are talking about the days before the Automobile, so I don’t know what families were on the Island then or how they got there, but these families that I mentioned had cars as this was back in the early twenties, and there has always in my memory at least been a bridge from the Mainland to the Island and I can remember 52 years back. Some of these families and people were quite old so it is quite possible that they came other ways before the twenties. I expect that some of them DID inhabit the island in the Gay Nineties, but and I may be wrong, it was always my impression that Newport, R. I. was the setting for Society in the Gay Nineties. I don’t think there were too many families on the Island before 1900. I remember when Stotesbury, Rockerfeller & Ford and quite a few of them were built. Proctors and Potter Palmers were old places so they probably did come across the Bay from Hancock Point on the old Steamers J. T. Morse or the Normbeger. In the case of Mrs Ladd an ambulance drove all the way from New York City just to take her off the Bar Harbor Express at Ellsworth and then repeated it in reverse in September. As you say they had more money than the mint and no taxes.
You certainly picked up some information on Bar Harbor, and very accurate too. That is because you are such a good salesman yourself and because of your interest in people. You were absolutely right when you said, in effect, “there was no family from Boston whom could qualify.” There was just one family from Boston that I remember and those were the Auchinclosses (Jackie Kennedys relatives). They lived on the Clefstone Road, and how I happen to remember them is that they were the very next cottage to Marie Hinkle for who I worked for a short season.
There were people from other places but they were not the real rich and they lived for the most part in the Hotels. The most prominent ones (Hotels) that I remember were the DeGregoire, The Malvern and the St. Savoire. The first two being the most prominent. Most of the people who stayed there were moderately rich and quite old. Widows, old Maids and such, BUT they also had their share of “filthy lucre”. Quite a few of them had Chauffeurs who stayed at some Cottage or other opened up by the natives for the summer.
From this time of year, on into August they Yachts began arriveing. Have mentioned them before I guess, and they brought another influx of the rich, who were either invited guests of the big estates ashore or (and) some of them lived on their Yachts. The DODGE FAMILY WAS ONE OF THESE I think. At least I cant remember any Dodge Estate.
All the real “swank”, as you say was concentrated on the shoreline. As I remember it the first cottage you sighted comeing down from Hulls Cove (just above Bar Harbor) was Mrs. Ladds and then followed Mrs. Proctor, Potter Palmer, Walter Damrosch, (later Atwater Kent, and so on right around the Shore Path, or some were situated up on the cliffs, overlooking the Sea. Atwater Kent (a vulgar chap) had at one time 32 boats and 62 cars, and he knew nothing about either. After I got fired from his Yacht (The Alondra), and went on DuPonts Yacht (The Placida) he came walking along the Causeway in Miami one morning, and as I had the Gangway Watch, he said “sailor this is a fine looking Yacht, who is its owner?” THAT is what I mean by vulgar. Any Yachtman KNEW every Yacht immediately by just looking at the Masthead, as the Yachts always flew not only the Yacht Club flag to which they belonged, but their own House flag. Thus, The Corsair of J. P. Morgans would have The House of Morgan flag AND The Columbia Yacht Club Flag to which it belonged I believe, plus the good old Stars and Stripes, which as Quartermaster it was my job to take care of. In the Navy it is the Signalman who does this, but Private Yachts having none this is the Quartermasters job.
Tags: Pop's Letters
Skepticism, curiosity, adaptability and free will make up our natural rights. These are the fundamental choices Nature granted us in order to survive. When we naturally choose to be skeptical we learn from experience rather than do everything by automatic instinct. When we naturally choose to be curious we seek out new experiences to learn from. When we naturally choose to adapt we change our behaviors based on new experiences. When we have the free will to choose the company we keep we can embark on new paths of skepticism, curiosity and adaptability.
These natural rights are eroded in the context of large, anonymous groups where there is less responsibility and less egalitarianism to decide your own fate. Yet they remain as our natural rights, crucial to our early survival in small, egalitarian groups. Because of this they are the essential ingredients that make us human.
“Natural rights are our human trademarks.” From The Five Forgotten Truths (in development)
Tags: Annotated Quotes, Natural Rights