In Name Only?

 

Wonderful of Color

There's beauty untold

That's ours to behold

In the wonderful world of color

Color, color, color

How can we describe color?

It takes only three attributes to describe a color.  By varying the intensity of Red, Green, and Blue, it is possible to describe millions and millions of colors.  This shade  of Red can be described as 235 Red, 91 Green and 91 Blue on a scale of 1 to 255.  Even if you are limited to one attribute, Black and White, by varying the intensity of Black and White you can come up with at least 50 Shades of Grey, if not a whole lot more shades.

Why then are there people who see things only as either 100% Black or 100% White.  That is not how the world works.  How can you think there is only one attribute, dimension, while living in a three dimensional world? How can you then limit that one attribute, dimension, to 100% or 0% of that one attribute.  The world is a carousel of colors to everyone except those who insist that if you are not 100% for them, you are “In Name Only”.  "There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

MTG and Nazis

What’s Going On

You see, war is not the answer

For only love can conquer hate

You know we've got to find a way

To bring some lovin' here today

Are Democrats Nazis?

Marjorie Taylor Greene said at a rally in Georgia on May 27, 2021 that "You know Nazis were the National Socialist Party. Just like the Democrats are a now a national socialist party." I hope I got this correct because Rep. MTG goes ballistic if things are misspelled.

She does deserve some credit for knowing that Nazi is short for Natonalsozialismus, which can be translated as National Socialism.  But even she doesn’t apparently know what socialism is, or what nationalism is.

First, Socialism is an economic system, NOT a political system.  Simplistically, if we say that the ownership of industries and the regulation of industries are the only attributes that will be used  to characterize economic systems, then:

·       Communism is the public ownership of ALL industries and the regulation ALL industries.

·       Socialism is the public ownership of SOME industries and the regulation  of ALL industries

·       Regulated Capitalism is the public ownership of NO industries and the regulation of ALL industries

·       Unregulated Capitalism is the public ownership of NO industries and the regulation of NO industries.

Some Democrats, and their associates, such as Representative Ocasio-Cortez or Senator Saunders might be characterized as favoring socialism as an economic system.  However President Biden and most Democrats seem to be better characterized as favoring Regulated Capitalism, not Socialism. So it is wrong to call all Democrats socialists.

Second, Nationalism does not mean love of county.  As practiced by Nazis and their ilk, it has come to mean HATRED of other countries.  If you LOVE your country, you can and do love other countries.  You just love your country more.  As an old movie buff, can I ask you to please watch this Clip from the movie Casablanca to see the difference.       

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM-E2H1ChJM. 

Victor Lazlo, a Czechoslovakian, leads a band at an American nightclub, watched on by his Norwegian wife, joined by the audience and a Spanish Guitarist in the singing of the French national anthem, Les Marseilles.  At the and of the anthem Yvette, a French national, shouts “Viva La France,” Long Live France, not “Morte D’Allemagne”, Death to Germany.  Despite this, the Nazis are threatened.  Because they equate LOVE of any other country with HATRED of their own.  Silly Rabbits! Loving a country is NOT hating every other country. LOVE of Nation is NOT Nationalism.  To equate Democrats with Nazis is as wrong and offensive as equating mask wearing during COVID with wearing a Yellow Star because you are Jewish.

Corporate Governance

 

The Farmer And The Cowman

I don't say I'm no better than anybody else,

But I'll be damned if I ain't jist as good!

Territory folks should stick together,

Territory folks should all be pals.

Cowboys dance with farmer's daughters,

Farmers dance with the ranchers' gals!

What does sticking together mean with respect to corporate Board of Directors?

In macroeconomics, a production equation is a function of capital and labor, which is a recognition that it takes both to produce value.  Corporations are chartered by society.  A Corporation’s Board of Directors sets policies for how the corporation operates.

At present, corporate boards represent shareholder, i.e. capital, interests.  But capital is only part of a production function, and also this does not consider the fact that corporations are chartered by society.  Shouldn't seats on the Boards of Directors represent all three interests: capital, labor, and society. 

Corporate Board of Directors in many European countries are already required to provide seats to employees of the corporation, i.e. labor.  Employee-owned companies, as opposed to publicly traded companies, by definition, have seats that represent both labor and capital, because employees ARE the labor.  Corporations are often the subject of lawsuits because they are operating at odds with society.  Rather than lawsuits or union battles, it would seem reasonable that capital, labor and society all have seats on a corporation’s Board of Directors.  Then the operations of a corporation would not just represent one interest, i.e. capital, and perhaps then those corporations will be friends.

The Capitol Riot Commission

 Branded 

Branded!

That's not the way to die!

What do you do when you're branded?

Can you live with a lie?

And wherever you go

for the rest of your life

You must prove ...

You're a man!

Have the  Republican Senators who voted against the Jan 6^th Commission Branded Themselves? 

Branded was a TV Western, starring Chuck Conners, that was about an Army Officer who accepted being court-martialed, branded, rather than tell the truth about the officer who was actually responsible and died in a massacre.  He accept being branded not for himself, but for one who died.  Those Senators who voted against the January 6^th Commission may have branded themselves, but they did it for their own good, not for the good of others.   When the truth comes out, as it is inevitable, may we remember this as the day that Republican Senators Branded themselves.

Tough but Fair beats Always Being Nasty

 

The Games People Play.

Whoa, the games people play now

Every night and every day now

Never meanin' what they say now

Never sayin' what they mean.

If people are playing games, what is the best strategy for winning those games?

One of my favorite discussions of the Prisoner's Dilemma from Game Theory is in the book Golem in the Gears by Pier Anthony.  The audio of that book can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhajFda83hQ.  The scene on the Prisoner’s Dilemma begins at the 8-hour 21-minute mark in that link.   It describes  how a strategy it calls "Tough but Fair", merely repeating tactics of your opponent from the previous round but otherwise always being nice, will be a winning strategy in the long run.  Tactically it will lose every match but will win the game. e.g. the war.  This same strategy was introduced as "Tit for Tat" by Anatol Rapoport, in which each participant in an iterated prisoner's dilemma follows a course of action consistent with his opponent's previous turn.  The Bible in Exodus would call this strategy “An eye for an eye”. The intent was not to say that  one should not retaliate, but that you one should not over retaliate, i.e. extract vengeance.  The intent behind the principle was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss. And vengeance is up to the Lord.

The law of retaliation, lex talionis , can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi.   Most of the major religions, e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. promote this strategy. A return to this in our daily lives would honor these religions and be a winning strategy for us in the long run.

Private Property or Framework for Human Behavior III

 

Why Don’t We Do It In The Road?

No one will be watching us
Why don't we do it in the road?

Is the fact that people will be watching us the only reason why we don’t do it in the road?

I have previously proposed three attributes as a framework for human behavior: Rights vs Duty; Nature vs. Nurture; Reality vs. Fantasy.  To these I would suggest one additional attribute: Public vs Private Property. Economists have also described Public Goods versus Private Goods.  Private Goods have a price, i.e. are rival, and are exclusive ( i.e. no on can use those goods while someone else is using those goods). Public Goods have no price, i.e. are non-rival and non exclusive (each person’s use of a good does not prevent another person from also using that good. E.g. sunlight.)  The problem is that most people are not economists and view property as being owned by an individual or owned jointly. There are goods that most people agree are individually owned, private property.  The disagreement appears to be in whether public property is owned by the public as a sovereign individual or are owned by all of the people in common.  Not everyone can be considered to be the sovereign at the same time.  We the people “ in order to form a more perfect union, etc.” are the sovereign in the United States.  Each person is not the sovereign and does not own this property jointly with all other people. The elected government of the people is the sovereign and owns this public property.

A public road in the United States still has an owner of record.  It is owned by a unit of government: e.g. a town; a city; a county; a state, etc.  It is not owned by each person jointly.  Those governments can, and do, control who and how that property can be used. An individual can not say that this property is controlled by the people, and I as an individual am one of those people, and thus I am free to use that property by my individual rules, not the rules that the government has imposed.  That person has effectively said that there is no public property and that all property is private but jointly owned and that he is a co-owner of all property considered to be the public’s.  Thus grazing rights on public land could be ignored, or restrictions on access, of the U.S Capitol are meaningless, because that property is “co-owned” by the parties who are choosing to ignore any restrictions. However the property is not owned jointly by all people.  It is public property and its used can be controlled by the rights of the people.  Property owned jointly,  in common,  can not be controlled by the public since its does not actually own that property.  To avoid a tragedy of the commons, public property is not owned in common.  It is owned by the public acting as  a sovereign.  You don’t own the road, and the people who might be watching can dictate its use. So the fact that no one will be watching you does not mean that the owners of that property, the public, can not tell you that you can do it on their roads. If you believe that there is only private property, then you are trespassing because you are not the owner of that property.  You might get away with trespassing but that does not mean that you are not guilty of trespassing. If you believed that there is public property then you must believe that the public has a right to control the use of that property, even if that use prohibits your use.  You might be a member of the public, but in this matter, you are not the public as a sovereign.   So the fact that no one will be watching you does not say mean the owners of that property, the public, can not tell you that you can’t do it in their roads. Whether because are the owners, and you are not, or because you have no claim to the that property.

Greater Idaho?

You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Loves You

The world still is the same, you'll never change it
As sure as the stars shine above
You're nobody, nobody till somebody loves you
So find yourself somebody to love.

Oregon counties are looking to love Idaho.

Disgruntled Oregonians in five counties have voted in favor of joining Idaho.  Are they sure they understand the implications?  It sounds like a five-year-old running away from home but asking for a ride from their parents.  If these counties join Idaho, the number of states stay the same, the number of Senators stay the same, the balance in the Senate will be the same.  The house seats apportioned to Idaho and Oregon will change, but apportionment of seats is based on population,  not land area.  Idaho will gain more land than it does population.  Each state gets at least one representative, but Idaho already has that seat.  With all of the problems in our country, those counties in Oregon are worrying about the table at which they will be seated?  Talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

I am sure that the temptation is to say “Don’t let the door hit your backside on your way out” is great, but that also won’t change things.  Most states have a split between rural areas and urban areas.  If the rural areas all banded together, and the urban areas all banded together, but the number of states remained the same, that would not change things.  It would emphasize that we are polarized, but we already knew that.   If these counties want to change things, they might want to secede from the United States, but they should remember that this was tried before and it did not work out so well for those who tried to secede.  Aside from finding someone new to love, the world will still be the same.  Maybe these counties need instead to spend some time on working loving the neighboring counties in their own state before they look for love elsewhere.