2. PREMISES FOR AN AMERICAN REFORMATION

Something Is Wrong

Some people think nothing is wrong in America. Others, for whatever reasons, prefer to ignore their foreboding thoughts. Perhaps they think they can escape the consequences if they play dumb. Something is wrong, however, and more people are of this opinion every day. The editor of a well-respected news weekly expressed this sentiment and pointed a finger at the focal point of unresolved wrongs and inevitable consequences:

"Wheezing Political Machinery"

It isn't clear that any of the earnest people seeking a new and rational system have come up with an answer that will work. But what is clear is that the U.S. political machinery is getting out of whack and is going to wheeze and backfire and choke and keep the country in trouble unless we stop ignoring its faults.

NUSA Reforms and AESOP are the "new and rational system" that will replace the current, wheezing machinery.

The Failing National Problem-Solving Process

Each nation has a policy-making process entrusted with solving problems for its people. In America, the process is Congress but Congress is failing as a national policy-making process. The major problems continue to be inflation, unemployment, overtaxation, and violence.

NUSA Position #1: Congress is failing a.s a national problem-solving process

Politicians Are Failing

What group of people must bear the blame when a country's people suffers problems? The guilty are the top policy-makers. For Americans, the top policy-makers are the politicians of the two major political parties. As policy-makers, politicians supposedly solve problems. Do they?

NUSA Position #2: In failing to solve problems, politicians are failing America.

America Does Not Have Representative Democracy

Why do problems remain unsolved? Are they undefined? Or, is there no problem-solving process? As a problem-solving process, Congress fails for many reasons. One reason is simple logistics. Can a Senator from California re-present the concerns and consensus of 30 million people? No. Nor can a Congressman re-present the problems of 500,000 people, even if he remains in Congress for fifty years (as one did) or becomes the Speaker of the House (as many have).

America's problems are not re-presented in the national policy-making process. Re-presentation is a logistic impossibility with the politicized system of elections, incumbency, and cloning. As such, America does not have a re-presentative government. Is it possible for elected officials to re-present the people under the existing legislative process? As they are now organized, can 435 politicians re-present America's problems for solution? No.

"Representative" is yet another word that has lost its original meaning. It has become synonymous with "elected official." Being an elected official, however, does not automatically make one a re-presenter of problems. The proof is in the results--results which are non-existent as indicated by rising inflation, unemployment, taxation and crime.

That the politicians have poorly organized both themselves and the law-making process is depressing. One should not lose hope however. The problems can be solved. A better organization of the concerned citizenry, the people who really live with the everyday problems, is needed. "Living" with problems in Congressional committees, sub-committees, special committees, and select committees has not solved problems. Democracy, capitalism and telecomputation will organize the American people to solve problems. This organization will collect, filter, percolate and hone individuals, issues, and information through a series of democratic levels on a regular basis. In this way, problems can be solved.

NUSA Position #3: It is a fact of life that America does not have re-presentative government!

Political Illiteracy in Solving Problems

The existing legislative process does not provide actual re-presentation of problems. Consider the tax bill pushed by the Reagan Administration in 1981 for example. One senator said, "I am troubled by the fact that here we deal with many questions of vast importance with very little preparation." Specifically, he pointed out that the Reagan tax bill "had about 140 amendments, of which, I think, no more than a dozen were printed."

Can a nation solve its problems when the lawmakers pass laws in ignorance? Did the other 128 amendments re-present private interest and privileges in place of national interest? Can lawmakers solve problems when they are unable to keep up with the problems? Are not more problems created when politicians blindly pass laws? Who puts the laws together if it is not the elected officials? Clearly, un-elected people are putting the laws together in a fashion that is not re-presentation of the national well-being; see "The Hidden Powers Who Run Congress."

Apparently, national policy-makers must rely on others, e.g., staffers, lobbyists, and consultants, to inform them. Why not organize the American people themselves to directly define their problems and formulate their solutions? Why not use the American people in place of expensive legislative staffs, aides and consultants? Would that not be a step toward better re-presentation of America's problems? Why continue to rely on a hodgepodge of un-elected staff members? These people are as susceptible as the politicians themselves to manipulation by special interests. To wit,

"Republican senators about to assume control of the chamber aren't the only ones enjoying a lot of attention these days. GOP staff and committee aides are being deluged with offers from lobbyists to bring their spouses on free trips to address "seminars" at plush vacation spots."

A heck of a way to run a country.

On the other hand, telecomputation can accurately register the intelligence and conclusions of the problem-sufferers, the American people. NUSA's national referendum represents the first telecomputative step to collecting, filtering, percolating, and honing this intelligence.

No Democracy, Only Demolections

When a country lacks re-presentative government, it also lacks democracy. Democracy literally means "divisions of people ruling."

In America, politicians separate the people from the ability to rule on their problems. People should not confuse the one-day rule at election time with true democracy. Does democracy at election time guarantee democracy between elections?

Democracy may occur at election time. However, the undemocratic way in which politicians ignore the populace dilutes democracy where it is most needed: in problem-solving. If America does not have democracy between elections, it should not expect the benefits of democracy, i.e., a more problem-free life.

If America does not have democratic problem-solving, then what does America have? Rather than having "divisions of people ruling" (democracy), America merely has "divisions of people electing" (demolections). Are the politicians democratic between elections? Or, do they, for reelection, sell out to the loudest voice or fattest contribution? With demolections, a people do not have public laws of, by, and for the people. Rather, politicians legitimize privileges for a few.

NUSA Position #4: America does not have democracy; America has demolection.

Benefits of Democracy: A More Problem-Free Life

As people confuse mere elections with democracy, they are also confused about the benefits of democracy. Politicians think the opportunity to vote for their reelection every two, four, or six years is a benefit of democracy. On the contrary,
the benefit of true democracy is a more problem-free world not a world of politicians. A problem-suffering people can eliminate their problems only when they have the power to rule on their problems. Isolated by time, distance and lifestyle,
politicians will not solve the people's problems.

Politics:  Irrelevant Problem-Solving 

Originally, "politics" and "politicians" meant policy-making and policy-makers. With productive policy-making, policy-makers resolved the problems of the polity. As a result, and quite logically, people were polite when they benefited from productive, re-presentative problem-solving. People are not polite when they face larger problems each day.

Contemporary policy-making is quite different from the original rationale for putting down out swords to determine policies on the plow. Today, politics is best defined as

bringing irrelevant factors
to a problem-solving process.

Thus, problems do not get solved by the modern politicians. Modern politicians concern themselves more with reelection and, subsequently, with favoring special interests instead of national interests. The simplest solution to the irrelevancy of reelection is to outlaw incumbency, a NUSA proposition. In addition, we need a new process for collecting, filtering, percolating, and honing information and issues from the people.

Politicians willingly promote their personal well-being (reelection) at the expense of the national common weal. This self-serving behavior implies a common attitude affecting all levels of the nation: live for today and to hell with tomorrow. Politicians put their short-term well-being above the long-term health of the country. The national debt is the politician's badge of honor. The national debt signifies how politicians deal with today's problems by mortgaging the future of Americans yet unborn. Restated, politicians prefer short-term truths over long-term truths.

Truth is the only criterion that should be weighed in determining the factors for defining and solving a problem. Other criteria are irrelevant and the problem will never get solved through their use.

Ultimate, absolute truths are beyond definition. However, the truths relative and relevant to the problems of a people are not so difficult to grasp. The democratic process derives problem-solving truths. For a people to solve problems by using the most relevant truths, the people must be able to rule on their problems: democracy.

Democracy and economics are twins. Only through democracy can a people have viable ecos nomos (economics). Legal environmental (ecos) laws (nomos) can only be productive and logical when the people composing the environment can rule on the making of the laws. In truth, economics is not what some ivory-tower intellectuals have come to call the "study of production, distribution, and consumption." Rather, economics is the result of a democratic process by which people can solve their problems. No one person can establish economic policies that are viable for an entire people and their environment. Literally and figuratively, only the whole people can establish ecos nomos. To do so, they must be democratically organized.

As previously stated, America does not have democracy between elections; America has only demolections. Between elections, politicians indulge in politics; they bring irrelevant factors to the problem-solving process. Politicized America does not have the benefits of democracy (e.g., a more problem-free environment) because the people are not organized to legalize their ecos nomos. NUSA Reforms is the first step in that direction.

NUSA Position #5: Long-term truths should be the basis of legislation.

Politicians Will Not Save America from Problems

Politicians will not save America. When an economy suffers inflation, unemployment, overtaxation, and violence, the people at the bottom or in the middle of the policy-making apparatus are not at fault. When willing workers have no jobs, the fault is not theirs. Rather, the top policy-makers must bear the blame for a problem-filled nation.

As the national problem-solving, policy-making process, Congress is not up to the work. By nature, politics paralyze it before the rising onslaught of unsolved problems. By content, incompetent politicians pollute it. Congress generates problems rather than solving them.

Economists Are Failing Humanity

Economists are not without blame as well. Like politicians, economists misuse words. Politicians misuse "re-presentative" and "democracy." Economists misdefine numerous things. Foremost among their misnomers is the label they use for themselves.

Economists Are Not Economists

As noted previously, economists misdefine economics. For them, it is the "study of production, distribution, and consumption." Yet the word economics literally translates "environmental laws" (ecos nomos). Logically, the whole human environment cannot be expected to thrive when a small group of people re-presenting only a part of the population make policies for the whole. This small group can be public (politicians) or private (economists). In the end, the whole suffers when a small part turns the benefits upon only itself and, like a cancer, denies the needs of the body in which it lives.

Economists are not even "knowers of the environment." They are merely lobbyists for a small part and, like politicians, cannot re-present the whole. Only the people as an organized whole can be the "ecos nomists" that they need. Only a democratically organized people can define and legalize the laws of their whole environment.

NUSA Position #6: "Economists" is a misnomer; modern economists cannot re-present the whole as the name implies. They are not knowers of the whole ecos.

Economists Misdefine "Capital"*

Economists also err in using the word "capital." Most economists define capital as a stock, bond, property, or currency. Wrong: these are merely symbols of true capital. Literally translated, capital means: "from the head--caput." The true or pure capital of an economy are the minds of the people and what the people do with them. The symbols can be productive or destructive depending on how the symbols affect human time. For example, productive symbols organize and motivate people to use their heads in the production of goods and services.

Pure capitalism* is not manipulating pieces of paper. Pure capitalism requires the organization of people's time to increase their wealth per capita. This organization can be done with or without paper currency. Pure capitalism is capitalism per capita. Its antithesis is decapitalism which is capitalism for the few.

The human body and its blood are analogous to production and paper currency. If you placed human blood in tubes, would you have a human being? No. What if you circulated the blood at faster and faster rates, would you then have a human being? No. Would the tubes become human if you sacrificed real humans to pour more blood into the tubes than ever before?  The substance of capital is not created by manipulation of the symbols of capital.

Presently, decapitalism sacrifices human beings upon the altars of symbolic wealth. Once this was called crucifying on crosses of gold. In the 1980 and 1982 recessions, banks and Wall Street had record income while unemployment rose. Symbols boomed in ways that doomed substance.

If stock, loan, bank, and realty business increases, does one have pure capitalism? The answer depends on the production effects. If these transactions do not improve production per capita, then capitalism does not exist. Capitalism exists only when production per capita increases; this is capitalism per capita, pure capitalism. Subsequently, transactions that reduce production per capita are de-capitalistic.

Bankers call for the right to compete with money market funds to stimulate the economy: What part of the economy? Paper shuffling? Stock brokers want reduced taxes on stock transactions, and they want an electronic exchange. With these changes, the number of stocks traded per day will double. However, stock trading merely puts money in the hands of the handlers; it does not create new production. This fact, ignored by brokers, emphasizes the distinction between fresh and stale stocks. How many of the stocks are fresh, offered by manufacturing concerns to promote production gains? Conversely, how many are stale stocks issued decades ago?

The transaction of decade-old stocks--stale symbols of capital--does not put money into production. Actually, stale stocks drain money from improving production per capita. As with human blood, there is only so much currency at any one time. If economists divert currency into circulating old stale stocks, fresh production suffers.

In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith defined a capitalist as someone who

neither intends to promote public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain.

This definition of a capitalist equates personal gain with human gain. With capitalist thus defined, the manipulator of the stale symbols of capital might rationalize that his increased income begets benefits for the nation as a whole. In reality, however, his actions are decapitalistic; they put people out of work and lower production per capita.

The true, pure capitalist is the person who fulfills the logical implications of the word "capital," i.e., from the head. A capitalist derives his wealth from the inspiration or perspiration of his own efforts. His gains are never at someone else's expense. A good example of a capitalist is the innovator who finds a time-saving way to lower the production cost of a good or service for many people. Naturally, the innovator has a right to retain part of the time-savings for his efforts or luck. This retention, however, is not a diversion of funds from production; it is a true profit or capital gain. As everyone goes forward, true profit (forward being) is realized. Time-saving capitalism, capitalism per capita--pure capitalism, benefits everyone.

Opposite of capitalism per capita is capitalism for a fewer few, or, decapitalism. Capitalism for a fewer few results when politicians pass laws to benefit only a part of the human environment. Consider the privileged symbol manipulators on Wall Street who escape their fair share of taxation while wrenching the substance of wealth away from the productive individuals and industries. This common, politically-popular form of capitalism results when "economists" lobby for a given faction, e.g., call for stock options for only the higher echelons of production. Supply-side economics is the epitome of capitalism for a fewer few.

The term "decapitalism" denotes what occurs when the symbols of capital are misused and production is subsequently decapitated. While Wall Street may call itself the center of capitalism, statistics provided in CURRENCY: SYMBOL OR SUBSTANCE show that more than 97% of the transactions on Wall Street do not increase production per capita in America. The vast majority of Wall Street transactions do not provide an infusion of fresh cash into manufacturing or production. Most of the transacted stocks, bonds, and currency are stale symbols issued long ago by the now cash-strapped issuing firm. The number of fresh stocks decreases every month even though stock transactions are increasing. Obviously, Wall Street has decapitalized America.

As an example of capitalism for a fewer few, consider the wave of mergers and takeovers. These business transactions use stocks, bonds, currency and land and are called capitalistic. If one defines capitalism as business activity that increases production per capita, these transactions are not capitalistic: they streamline and vivisect production, e.g., the Wheelabrator-Fry dismemberment of Pullman. Consider this article title concerning stock activity on Wall Street: "Recent Merger Boom Adds To Unemployment Gloom; No Industry Is Immune."

Many will object to qualifying a capitalist as being someone who derives income by directly or indirectly producing more wealth. This excludes many of the reputed capitalists on Wall Street. Most of the latter claim to be pragmatists who believe that the "magic of the marketplace" can revitalize an economy. However, this legally-stimulated and expanding sector of the human environment derives income by putting people out of work. Pragmatically, this magic is an evil spell which momentarily benefits a fewer few.

Do not confuse promises of increased "productivity per worker" with the more crucial "productivity per capita." One can increase productivity per worker by manipulating the ratio, e.g., by firing every person that is not as productive as a given standard. This productivity "increase" is common in many mergers, but actual production per capita falls. For example, consider the farmer who increases productivity per worked acre of his 1000-acre farm by cultivating the single acre that was most productive the previous year. In a country where productivity per worker is increased solely by reducing the work force, eventually everyone will be unemployed except the one, most productive person. Somewhere in America is one person whose productivity is the greatest of any American. Should we fire everyone but him so our efficiency per worker can reach its highest level? Where would that leave productivity per capita?

If you live in America, you are living in a country with declining productivity per capita. The policies of the politicians and economists are causing a reduction in production per capita. All the money tied up in takeovers and mergers is causing higher interest rates for production enterprises. Capitalists must compete with decapitalists for limited funds.

Don't be taken in by certain claims that takeovers and mergers are good for the country. The Reagan head of the Security and Exchange Commission (John Shad) said not to worry about the money being tied up in mergers; after all, it was still in the country. Would you trust a surgeon who said he wouldn't see anything wrong with draining all of your blood as long as it was kept in the operating room?

Pure capitalism deals with producing goods and services to alleviate the private problems of being a living human being. For instance, food, energy, housing, and clothing are private, personal problems; most people put in a 40-hour week in order to solve these private problems. Pure capitalism occurs when an individual innovates a way of producing a good or service at a lower time cost. Merely lowering the production time cost is not enough: some of the time-savings must be passed onto the consumers. With pure capitalism (capitalism per capita), everyone benefits from a time-saving innovation, both the producer and the consumer.

Pure capitalism is the best means by which to solve private, personal problems that otherwise waste people's time. If you don't solve your problem of hunger you will not only be a poor producer but you will die. The problem of inadequate shelter can bring the same results. Capitalism per capita, however, offers solutions to these problems.

The common, time-wasting problems of citizens are best solved through democracy in the public sphere. Only when people can rule on their own problems will time-wasting problems be a thing of the past. Thus, capitalism (ecos nomos) and democracy are twins in terms of being the best problem-solving processes: one operates in the private sphere while the other operates in the public arena. Both are the optimal ways of improving the quality of life through more time-saving innovations and fewer time-wasting problems.

Most people today are losing the inflationary battle against unsolved problems because they concentrate their time in solving only their personal, private problems. They err in thinking that they can privately outwork the cost of public problems. This faulty thinking results not only in higher inflation and overtaxation but also in unemployment and violence. The latter can literally end one's capacity to deal with personal, private problems.

If people are to retain their private means for solving personal problems (employment), they must spend some time each week resolving the common, public problems. Writing your "representatives" is not the answer. If it was, the 350 million pieces of mail to Congress in 1980 would have brought us Nirvana. If you are to use your time wisely in solving public problems, you must first promote a democratic process and then use it. To have the benefits of democracy (a more problem-free existence), one must fulfill one's duty and right to participate in solving public problems.

NUSA Reforms is a beginning for individuals who understand their duty and are committed to spending time solving public problems.

Economists Misdefine and Misuse "Inflation"

When words are misused, they mislead. Such is the case with the "economists'" use of the word "inflation." While they may seek to stop inflation, the nature of their definition generates more inflation. As a result of their tutelage, people primarily believe that inflation is merely the cheapening of money. This approach to inflation is crystallized foremost in the writings of the monetarists, e.g., Milton Friedman. Friedman says that inflation is ultimately only a money phenomenon.

Inflation: The Cost of Unsolved Problems

The best, general description of inflation is "the cost of unsolved problems." This definition can be justified in at least two ways. First of all, someone has to pay the cost of unsolved problems; people either pass on the cost of problems or allow the government to tax them for useless bureaucratic intervention. In the end, the problems are not solved and production suffers.

If you think about it, you will recognize that every problem (e.g., vandalism, corruption, incompetence, and illness) wastes human time. Inflation is the "price" of this waste.

Consider also the traditional and limited view of inflation as the cheapening of money. The money or currency that you earn signifies what your time is currently worth. When inflation cheapens your money, it also cheapens your time, particularly production time.

Anything that cheapens your time is a problem. Inflation is not a problem per se, it is merely the index or measurement of problems. For example, a thermometer measures the problem of a broken furnace, deregulated oil, or bankrupt municipalities; it does not cause the house to be cold. Similarly, while it is not the cause of the decreased value of your time, inflation is an index of that cheapening. That is not to say, however, that the money presses of a government do not cause some cheapening of currency. Here again, the symbol is manipulated and the problems remain.

Unemployment and Inflationary Suffering

Foremost, inflation indexes the cheapening of time with currency being the intermediate measure. Strangely, politicians and economists rely on unemployment and recession to fight the rising tides of inflation. ("We're not going to stop inflation without a period of recession and slow growth," said Herbert Stein. ) Perhaps they overlook unemployment as cheapening a person's time or a reduction in the production of goods and services. And, in the face of expanding population and demand, reduced employment and production cause inflation due to shortages. Using a recession--gross unemployment--as a tool against inflation actually increases inflationary suffering through more unemployment and shortage inflation. (Chapters in Necronomics and NOBILIS expand on how inflationary suffering is bipolar: increased prices and decreased employment.)

How have the politicians and economists come to view unemployment and recession as anti-inflationary tools? Very simply, they view inflationary suffering solely in terms of money rather than in the value of that which money symbolizes: time. Again, they confuse symbols with substance. Through rising prices, inflationary suffering occurs slowly as it cheapens the value of a person's time at work. Through unemployment, inflationary suffering occurs rapidly and completely; unemployment reduces the value of one's time at work to zero.

NUSA Position #7: Unemployment, a fixed income of zero, is the worst kind of inflationary suffering.

By viewing inflationary price changes and suffering as being a result of money supply only, politicians use symbols to fight the substance of inflation. They "fine-tune" the money supply. However, if one recognizes that inflation is foremost an index of bigger problems, one sees the foolhardiness of this solution. Treating the symptoms never cures the disease.

Legisflation: Zero Sum

Another problem indexed by inflation is the legalization of inflationary incomes by the politicians for a privileged few. The law-making process is the primary source of inflationary suffering. It can be called legisflation and reveals where the greatest inflationary problems are in an economy. To appreciate the legalization of inflation, one need only consider the nature of legalized privileges. The recipient receives/retains more money or income without producing more goods or services. Is this not a restatement of the classical definition of inflation: increased compensation without increased production?

Since there is only so much being produced at any one time, the acquisition of an economic privilege from the lawmakers axiomatically causes losses for the un-privileged. In other words, when politicians hand out special favors, they also hand out special disfavors. These disfavors are a major source of inflationary suffering.

The main source of inflation within a nation is overpayment to people. Overpayment is relative to the production of goods and services. Any degree of overpayment necessitates the underpayment of others. Most legalized inflation comes through tax exemptions or supports. In some cases, these supports are for people producing very little or nothing. Legisflation also comes from politicians inhibiting the establishment of new systems for solving problems (i.e., producing goods and services at a lower cost in time).

Democracy and Economics: Perfect Complements

Democracy and economics are perfect complements. One implies the other. In terms of saving time for human beings, one is the best policy-making process for public problems, and the other is best (as capitalism per capita) for private problems. The people of a country compose the human environment, that is, the ecos. If the people have a democratic process, they will also have sound, environmental laws (ecos nomos). To have viable economics for the human environment, people must have a democratic process for solving their problems. Obviously, the current demolections will not do.

One simple way of showing how democracy and economics are similar is to consider what the practitioners of the two call for. The politicians say that we need leaders to take us forward, that is, forward leaders. Economists say that we need producers, again, forward (pro-) leaders (ducer).

NUSA Position #8: Democracy and economics are complements; one implies the other.

Legal vs. Logical

Consider the semantic relationship between "logical" and "legal." Both have the same Latin root "legein" which means "to gather," a synonym for "to produce." Before human legal laws, there were logical laws underlying survival. Their essence is "if you don't produce (gather), you don't survive." Culturally we discourage theft and other counterproductive activities because we acknowledge that they do not promote survival collectively. Recently, however, politicians have failed to pass logical laws reflecting the greater natural ones. For example, tax shelters, supports, and exemptions are counterproductive. These illogical laws increase the burden on all tax payers and encourage a diversion of time from production. (The impending collapse of civilization is the legacy of habitual politicians; see "Legacy" in Necronomics.) Laws that do not correspond with the greater logic of survival decrease production, increase problems and threaten our very survival.

Why do politicians pass illogical laws? Consider the role of bribes; they demand attention for a part and deny attention to the whole. But, if the interest of the money giver is one of overpayment for their good and services, then the zero-sum of inflation comes into play. Every dollar of inflationary return is also a dollar of inflationary suffering. Is this democracy? Clearly, only true democracy can reverse illogical, legal laws.

NUSA Position #9: America suffers from many inflationary, illogical, legal laws.

A Constitutional Convention Is Needed: NUSA Reforms

If one recognizes that neither the politicians nor the "economists" are going to save America, one must ask how America can be saved. As mentioned earlier, a Constitutional Convention is needed and we, the people, must call for one if we are to have an end to:

illogical, legal laws,
economic privileges,
inflationary public problems, and
corrupt and incompetent policy-making.

The calling of a Constitutional Convention must begin somewhere. This text, NUSA Reforms, is perhaps the beginning. Only the readers can continue and implement what the writers have begun. Because NUSA Reforms is the limited, democratic effort of a few, the reader must be forgiving of its short-comings. But add to this forgiveness an awareness that a more democratic, capitalistic effort can arise and give you means to control your fate.

If you don't participate in the law-making process, you will have the laws made against you. Democrats and Republicans prove this every day. You will pay taxes for your share of the American economic system of production. You will also pay the share of those who monopolize the ears of the politicians for tax exemptions and supports.

Do not be fooled; no one but you can re-present your concerns. If you think that others can and will, you are ignoring the reality of the deteriorating situation about you: Politicians in Congress can re-present only a few people at a time within their politicized process for selecting information, issues, and individuals for representation. Experience shows that politicians re-present those who threaten or pay the most.

If you want to do what you have to do and if your interests are to be fairly and logically re-presented in policy-making, then you must first support a change in the system. This change must be one that utilizes modern telecomputation to prioritize and solve the problems of the American people. This change can lead only to more democracy.

If you don't take time to participate in the public defense of your interests, you have not yet tasted real suffering. All your private efforts to promote your well-being will vanish as others guide the public laws to tax and disenfranchise you. In other words, without your democratic involvement, "public" laws will be the source of privileges (private laws) for others.

Complexity: Garbage Dump

As your reading progresses, you may question whether the proposed reforms will ever get off the ground because of their necessary complexity. The issue, however, is not complexity; it is organization. The organized complexity of a simple, elegant snowflake should not be confused with the disorganized anarchy of a garbage dump. Complexity varies in organization between order and chaos.

Our politicized, national problem-solving process is a garbage dump. It is founded on shifting, special interests that cast aside long-term truths for short-term, inflationary gains (tax exemptions or supports without increased production). Special interests benefit by failing to carry their share of America. In so doing, they imbalance the system by forcing overtaxation upon the politically "unspecial" majority.

In the past, each new session of Congress (the garbage dump of policy-making) exempted a few more people from carrying their fair share of a stable America. These "band-aid" solutions for the criers or bribers merely imbalanced the system further. This legisflation forces the unheard or unanswered to carry more than their fair share of the system. The 1980 election clearly elevated a clique of policy-makers dedicated to wholesale tax exemptions and legal favors for their special interests. It can't go on.

NUSA's Benefit of the Doubt

The state of America is not good for either the people or the top policy-makers. Uncorrected, the decline will continue toward a less democratic, more problem-filled world. Eventually, the active and retired top policy-makers will be taken to task for their failures; history and human nature dictate this course.

There are two paths which the politicians can take. One is to blame the problems on the people: Carter and Reagan engaged in this "not me" behavior. The other path is to recognize them for what they are and to seek correction of the national process.

One does not have to look far to find politicians who place the blame on the people. Carter pointed the finger at the American people claiming that economic problems were a result of their lack of savings and discipline. Reagan said the American people do not sacrifice or volunteer enough. Do either of these two men live according to their own advice? Do you have the comfortable tax-exempt or tax-supported existence that they do?

Don't let politicians beguile you with claims that you don't save enough, discipline yourself, or make enough sacrifices. We, the people, may not be totally innocent, but the policy-makers are solely responsible for the illogical, inflationary laws under which we all live.

Victims of Circumstance

The tone of these writings is stridently anti-politician. No group in American history has been entrusted with the care of the common weal as the politicians have. Is their record one of re-presenting the concerns and consensus of the American human environment? When making the laws, did they pursue better ecos nomos? Obviously, they have failed, but why? Most politicians were moral people at one time. Most were competent at certain activities when they started their political careers. However, between the undemocratic selection/election process and the problem-solving process in Washington (feudal despotism), most politicians were bent into poor problem-solvers. A few quit. Most didn't.

As policy-makers, the present politicians do not have the advantage of the democratic process described herein. Therefore, these originally well-intentioned persons are victims of circumstance. As such, the most productive course is not wholesale punishment for politicians.

Rationale Behind the Benefit of the Doubt

What would you do if you found yourself face-to-face with a burglar, and each of you had a gun pointed at the other? Fire? Talk? Civilization and its habitual policy-makers are at such a standoff which threatens dire consequences for all. What should the growing numbers of unemployed, overtaxed sufferers of politically-aided inflation do? Initiate violence against the politicians? Or should a deal be struck?

For the sake of all, a deal should be struck. Enlightened politicians should be pardoned and allowed to keep all that they have. An enlightened politician is one who is willing to admit that he has been a victim of circumstance, of the times, and of the system. The same "benefit of the doubt" should also be given to all who have lobbied and monopolized the ears of the politicians. After all, they, too, merely played the game as it stood.

For the sake of all, no retroactive retribution should be exacted as a new system based on

Capitalism per Capita (pure capitalism)
and
Democracy per Diem (daily democracy)

come into being. In other words, the reformed, enlightened politicians should not be punished. Nor should the winners of the various forms of inflationary pyramids be attacked.

The rules of the game should be changed as quickly and smoothly as possible. Clemency for those who participated in the previous system will insure that all the intelligence of America is shifted toward a production boom. Any anger and hostility will fade as the standard of living resumes its climb. (Those who fail to embrace the new, however, should not be spared from the bearing the cost of their actions.).

With the unraveling of socio-economic, the remaining crucial variable in humanity's rebirth is whether the awakened sufferers are enlightened enough to realize the necessity of a "benefit of the doubt" for the existing politicians. Politicians are victims of circumstance, which, if not forgiven, will make us all victims of more dire circumstances (revenge and international power plays).

Let the armed thieves back away slowly, keeping all that they have. Better to have your head (capita). With your head and a little time, you can replace the stolen fruits of your labor and erect more secure barriers:

capitalism per capita and democracy per diem.

Summary of Premises

Based on the premises outlined, reforms are needed. It is safe but sad to say that the

Congress is a failing problem-solving process;
politicians will not reform Congress or themselves;
America does not have re-presentative democracy;
economists are as bad as politicians;
America does not have pure capitalism;
and the politicians must be forgiven before we can start anew.

These are the main premises which underlie the call for a reform that only the people can initiate. NUSA Reforms is a start. The next chapter outlines the principles which must be observed if reformation is to be a renaissance and not an orgy of self-destructive revenge.

Format/Reference Note

The descriptions and concepts within the NUSA/AESOP writings are grounded in information garnered primarily in 1980 and 1981. Only a few of the sources cited are not from readings in these two years. No attempt was made to choose one camp of thought as a basis for formulating descriptions and prescriptions. Based on the declining world-wide conditions, something is inherently wrong with economists and political scientists. An a priori stand was that none of the past great thinkers has any meaningful relevance to the present as a total package. Simultaneously, if a relevant total package was to be constructed, a collection and shifting of recent insights was needed.

During the examination of recent jewels of information, the guiding concern was how to present the problems so that they can be described and solved. No attempt was made to justify any existing fields of thought, e.g., marxism, communism, capitalism, or socialism. Initial thoughts that all capitalists were greedy, irresponsible businessmen were reversed when the thought dawned that most so-called "capitalists" were nothing of the kind in the original, pure sense of the word. Rather than being capitalists, they were decapitalists who hid behind the terms and tools of the desirable capitalists. The new central political force, however, Democratic Capitalism, will be true to its name.

No doubt, many liberals will reject the NUSA/AESOP effort because its vast reliance on conservative rags. As of Winter 1982, the writings derived their main information from the following sources in the percentages given:

51% The Wall Street Journal
27% United States News and World Report
11% The Richmond Times Dispatch and The Richmond News Leader.

To United States News and World Report and The Wall Street Journal, the authors wish to express a debt of gratitude. In these two sources of the written word were the insights and information gleaned for most of the NUSA/AESOP writings. To paraphrase Will Rogers, all we know we learned in the Wall Street Journal and the U.S. News and World Report.

 Homepage
 Index