Sunday, June 13, 2010
Khumalo on Knowledge and Freedom
equal Protection from law stems from same reasoning as equal punishment for a crime, if one robs a prince he/ she is punished equally if they rob a pauper. Though if we use proportionate punishment they should likely pay more for robbing a pauper, who has far less than a prince. That is besides the point, the point is the law should offer equal protection to the prince as well as to the pauper. It follows again that punishment should be equal for murdering a prince or if one murdered a pauper. The law should be as diligent in looking for one who robbed or murdered a pauper as they are diligent in looking for one who robbed or murdered a prince, after all, all are equal before the law. Does this happen, all too often not, but again this is not the focus of our discussion, survival is the focus of this discussion.
The law should protect all equally in the right to survive as best as possible within their means. The law for all to be truly equal before the law in a given society must allow the prince and the pauper equal rights to use their abilities. If the prince is allowed to do a certain activity for his survival, if the pauper is able to, the law should not be there to prevent the pauper from competing with the prince.
Survival to the best of ones abilities depends on the knowledge that one possesses. It is the knowledge that we have that allows us to undertake a task, even the most menial of task needs our minds to know what they are doing, one will not just dig a hole for no purpose, worse when the so called best minds ask somebody to dig a hole for no purpose, pay that somebody and expect there to be economic progress, why not let the person stay at home and pay them rather than going through a charade. Money is backed solely by production in the long run even if charlatans say in the long run we are all dead, if boosting an economy was as simple as digging holes for no purpose, the world would be filled with billionaires, if we all dug holes for no reason and got paid, where would we get food from, who would make the cars, the computers, televisions, and all the goods, that money would not be worth the tree that was cut down to make it. We therefore need knowledge to make useful goods and services, to undertake meaningful tasks that we can exchange for something else. Digging a trench to place electric cables makes sense, digging a trench just to merely cover it up makes no sense, it is nonsense.
For the survival of a society, individuals need to undertake meaningful tasks, and the best person for that task must be allowed to undertake that task. The law can not decide who is the best person, their knowledge needs to be tested, it is tested as has been well known and articulated by Adam Smith through a process of competition.
Once a law is in place limiting competition, the prince has immediately received preferential treatment from the law, everybody else with knowledge in that field can no longer compete with this aristocracy. A society will protect it's banks, it's communications sector, it's engineers, doctors, it's mass media, its casinos from competition only to protect those it considers it's aristocracy. Yet was is a casino, anybody can open a casino if they so desired, a deck of cards in a basement is a casino. What is a bank, it is literally just an institution to deposit ones money, a safe in a basement is a bank. A bank borrows from the public and lends money in the hope they can lend money at a higher interest rate than what they pay the public. Why should one beg to work in a bank when they can easily start their own and over time prove to the public that they are better than others. What if they are not the so called right fit, should they then forsake their knowledge because the do not follow the ideology of the protected banks, because they are the wrong race, because they are the wrong sex, because they are from the wrong class, a pauper class, if they have the knowledge the law should stand aside and say go ahead. To open a bank you need nothing more than a safe, you do not need even $10, just a safe and say you will protect peoples money. Think about it, when you borrow money from a bank and agree to pay back a certain percentage, you are being a bank. Most people pay that money off, why could they not just have borrowed the money from the public at lower interest rates, if their luck was with them, because certainly they had the skills of a banker. These controls are just there to protect the princess, if they where real princes they would be talented enough not to need protection from the law. But they are of course charlatans, if they where princess they would have been taught by their aristocratic parents all the nitty gritty.
Look at the banking crises in America, princess Goldman Sachs and the others called themselves when finally their knowledge was proved to be short the laws where changed to bail them out, the more talented smaller brokers got nothing, the law protected the so called prince over and above the pauper, that is not equality before the law.
Equality before the law means the law does not favor any above the other. This must be understood, it does not mean the government should not operate in the economy though that is desirable, but if the government does intervene, it must intervene equally for all, if the government says it subsidizes a sector, all in that sector must benefit, that could cost too much, it spud be better the government does not subsidize.
The main point however is that if X can use his/ her knowedge to undertake a task, so can Y. Simply if Peter can use his knowledge in a certain task, so can Paul. If the law protects Peter from Paul, Peter is more equal than Paul so to say.
What does it take to create a telecommunications company, at it's most basic it takes connecting 2 people with a wire and charging them. saying it must be the prince who is allowed and nobody else is pure evil, what if the pauper can do it better but the law prevents him, that is not only evil directed towards the pauper, the true prince, but evil directed towards the society at large, the law is saying to he'll with the people, to he'll with society they will use our princes service no matter what, even though the pauper could have given a better service, because he had better knowledge.
Our survival depends on the knowledge we posses, the society will always be better of by allowing the best to use their knowledge, only the people, not a select group of aristocrats like those at Goldman Sachs, can decide who is better. The American model driven by Goldman Sachs and Bank of America and Barclay's is not a model for a world that believes in equality before the law, it is as crude as Stains, Trotskys model for the world, a dictatorship of the proletariat who decides who can use their knowledge, masquerading as people who believe in freedom, the bailout was a revolution and the proletariat succeeded, wolfs in sheepskin clothing.
If the law bars you from using your knowledge, that society is inherently evil, look at the history of that society, where are they coming from, most likely people who thought they are better than other people who thought the world belongs to them, evil runs in their blood, hypocrites of the worst order and they teach the world evil.
Freedom is simply if the prince can undertake a certain activity so can the pauper the society will decide whose knowledge is better, what is the difference between a doctor from USA, UK, South Africa, Canada, Malawi, Russia when they are using similar textbooks, are veins somehow different in say Canada, if somebody says yes they are evil of the first order. Engineers all over the world are using similar text books, if somebody say a kiloton on Germany is more than a kiloton in Zimbabwe they are beyond our comprehension of evil, only evil can deny knowledge and proof when it is in front of it, the Catholic church wAs a supreme evil when it hounded Galileo, arrogance is not the right word, evil is. They where all fighting knowledge, protecting the prince from the pauper.
In reality they where just afraid of their betters, they knew it then they know it now, they fear the fact that an atom in Spain behaves exactly the same in Tanzania.
They are afraid of the truth, the truth is there is a right and a wrong not the shades of gray they advocate.