House of Eratosthenes

We were having a Directive 10-289 discussion a year and a half ago, back when the Superman movie came out. I know, the Last Son of Krypton really doesn’t have much to do with Directive 10-289, but the leftists were coming over to my blog explicitly for the purpose of getting themselves pissed off, and then going back to their own spots to sound the alarm that The Hated Enemy needed to be put in his place, recruiting other leftists to come over here & show me what for. So that will tend to get the subject wandering…and then of course there’s me…not known for the bumper-sticker snippet, exactly.

You know what Directive 10-289 is, right? It’s a mythical regulation by Ayn Rand.

To understand what it is, you have to inspect what liberalism was back in 1957. Fortunately, this particular strand of liberalism is the one that says “aw, we can try some limited amounts of socialism…it’s okay…” and, changes in nomenclature notwithstanding, this strand of liberalism has been left unaltered since at least 1932. The Left said socialism is non-toxic when they were trying to get FDR elected — they are saying exactly that today — it has been their position every single hour in between.

Some of us believe socialism is not only toxic, but anathema to the original vision of this country, and consequently incompatible with the continued function of our society. From that point, we don’t have to call ourselves “Republicans” to be the enemies of The Left. We don’t have to call ourselves conservatives, or neo-cons, or be in favor of the invasion of Iraq, or say nasty things about Bill & Hill, or anything of the like. We are the enemy, if we articulate the simple belief that socialism is bad.

Or show any skepticism to it.

But don’t you dare call any of those leftists socialists.

Directive 10-289 simply takes socialism…be it bold enough to refer to itself by the S-word, or not…to its ultimate conclusion.

Point One: All workers, wage earners, and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such board to be appointed by the Bureau Of Economic Planning and National Resources. All person reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.

Point Two: All industrial, commercial, manufacturing, and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit, nor leave, nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any or all their property.

Point Three: All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes, and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of elimination monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names, or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.

Point Four: No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufactured or sold after the date of this directive, The Office of patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended. (Added later in chapter: All “research departments, experimental laboratories, scientific foundations” will be closed except for government-operated facilities.)

Point Five: Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as is, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more or no less. The year is to known as the Basic or Yardstick Year is to be the year ending on the date of this directive. Over or under production shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification board.

Point Six: Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less. Over or under purchasing shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.

Point Seven: All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive. (But taxes will be allowed to increase as needed for the public good)

Point Eight: All cases arising from and rules not specifically provided for in this directive, shall be settled and determined by the Unification Board, whose decisions shall be final.

Now, you got all that? You can’t change prices, you can’t hire, you can’t fire, you can’t retire, you have to buy exactly the same quantities next year that you bought this year, you can’t improve anything, you can’t invent.

Everything has to be static.

Is it fair to criticize socialism for what it ultimately might become? My position is, not only is this fair in the case of socialism, but unusually so. “A little dab ‘ll do ya,” effective a technique as it is in getting socialism sold in free societies, has always turned out to be false advertising — socialism and moderation go together like Captain Crunch and ketchup.

For those who’ve not tried that, that is to say “not at all.” Put that back in the pantry now.

But the point is, limited socialism doesn’t work. Oh, Year One and Year Two and Year Three it might hang together just fine, but you have to remember that ultimately, socialism is the quest for comfort through abstinence from the adventure all humans were designed to have. It is the extinguishing of life, so that trials and tribulations associated with life, can be avoided. Yes, socialists don’t like it described that way, but it’s true. Socialism is also ineffective in achieving that goal, if the life isn’t actually extinguished — in other words, where there is life, there is bound to be discomfort.

So year to year, the discomfort happens, and ultimately the folks in charge declare “Something Must Be Done.” So you get more of it. Some loose end was left flapping around, and so the authorities tape it down. You could do something before, and now you no longer can. Next year, it’ll be something else.

So you see, in the abstract form, Directive 10-289 really is accurate. Socialism as practiced in real life, minus limits, equals the eight clauses enumerated above. And the limits are false limits, cemented in place by nothing. They are jettisoned, or due to be jettisoned, sooner or later.

Is that sufficient scope creep? I think so. So on to the point I really wanted to make…

I’d like to zero in on what I think has a very good chance of being the most poignant comment ever entered into The Blog That Nobody Reads, since the day the very first post was put up…(the first post, interestingly enough, had to do with reaching across the aisle). It is entered on July 18, 2006, from user Lockjaw45:

I came here through the Antiidiotarian Rottweiler, and this has now become my favorite blog. It’s a breath of fresh air and a great relief from my current pursuit of a masters degree. The stuff I have to put up with from fellow students and professors! When these people talk about things closely related to their own expertice [sic] they argue constantly. When it comes to politics suddenly they all agree. I find that suspicious.

Now, I should add I know very little personally about this stuff, my higher-level education being limited to a few sessions of corporate accounting I took from a community college. But on the other hand, in my “job” life I’ve been toiling away, pretty much constantly, at jobs where you’re really supposed to have a bachelor’s degree, at the very least, and so I’ve been lucky enough to meet folks who have been put through the process.

I’m not going to sit here and type in stuff to the effect that I’m unimpressed with them…far from it. But at the same time, I’d be lying if I indicated any connection visible to me, between the beneficial talents they brought to the job, and what they picked up in the higher edjyoomakayshun. The connection simply has not been there. They came to work early in the morning when they clearly didn’t feel like it, they were confronted by challenges and resolved them with their people skills, they showed restraint in the e-mail system (most of the time) when they clearly would have preferred to tell someone to Kiss It. Is that what they learned in college? Could be…if you want to teach the next generation that stuff, is a tuition necessary? That doesn’t seem to be what parents have in mind when they put that fund together. It’s certainly not what I have in mind when I think about my little curtain-critter going to college. I think, like most other parents, about LEARNING HOW. Learning how, in college, seems to be more about social stuff, not “hard” stuff.

And working in IT for many years, I had to use “hard” technical skills and I got to watch others use theirs. Education is valuable for that, but never once did I gather the impression people learned this stuff from what we normally call “college.” This was the product of advanced server administration coursework…they picked it up in a “learning center,” courtesy of their own credit cards, and/or some generous employers…and, it came from no small amount of On-the-Job Training. For a dozen years, what I saw needing doing that people knew how to do, they knew through OJT. Come to think of it, that’s true of the eight years of project management I’ve done since then as well — there are massive quantities of energy being channeled into defining things like PMBOK and PDLC, but I’m always amused when a crisis comes along and these robustly-designed methodologies of project management end up being implemented kind of the same way a rechargeable drill is implemented when it’s used to pound a loose nail back into place.

To bottom-line what I’ve been noticing about higher-level education in twenty years: It doesn’t seem to function for the purpose of kiln-firing stronger bricks, quite so much as to produce bricks that will stick to the mortar better.

But that casts an interesting light on Lockjaw’s point, doesn’t it? Presuming higher education exists, not to fill minds with knowledge as is conventionally thought, but to inspire those minds to work together…to not use dirty words in the e-mail, to get out of bed when you don’t necessarily feel like it, to function smoothly in whatever culture the rest of us have decided to build, be it a modern Athens or an Idiocracy…it helps to explain what Lock has been seeing…and also, what Lock has been seeing, helps to explain it.

We want to get along with each other.

If you’re a San Francisco 49’ers fan, we get along with each other better when I’m also a 49’ers fan, than when I’m a Cowboys fan.

If we’re both 49’ers fans, we get along better when we talk about 49’ers. College exists to teach us how to do that.

And in my mind, that’s a great tragedy not so much because of the stuff that could be taught, that isn’t…but because, this is stuff people already know how to do when they don’t go to college. Construction guys know how to compare notes about The Big Game the next day. In fact, if they’re rooting for opposite football teams, they know how to talk smack to each other and remain close friends. Come to think of it, so do boys in the second- and third-grades.

And come to think on that a little bit harder, I’ve met many a college-boy who can’t do those things. You’re on his side of the fence, or he’ll pick up his marbles and go home.

As I was searching around The Blog That Nobody Reads for my nominee of the best comment that was ever entered into it, I was given cause to think about occasions where folks on The Left offer up examples of their willingness to compromise, how they reach across the aisle. Occasions where they start discussing points We, The Enemy have made that they think are worthy of respectful consideration…but always, they, The Leftists, should get credit for their ability to engage in this compromise. And I see a pattern emerge in that “compromise”:

Whatever agents contribute the non-Leftist part of that compromise, exist in name only. The ideas represent no compromise at all.

I’m talking about things like…Bill O’Reilly — deserves attention when he believes in global warming.

Alan Greenspan’s ideas — deserve consideration when he decries the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

William F. Buckley’s words should find receptive ears — when he declares the invasion of Iraq to be a mistake.

And everybody should pay closer attention to Chuck Hagel — when he says it is the biggest mistake ever.

So if you ignore names and pay attention only to ideas, you see there is no compromise coming from that direction. The Left is interested in finding ways to work together with the opposition, when they see that opposition is possibly coming around to doing things their way. Short of that, there will be no peace pipe and there will be no white flag of truce.

On The Left, compromise is, in my recollection, consistently phony. But remember what I said about socialism; this is to be expected, because socialism cannot exist with any sort of genuine moderation. It is extremist by nature, even when it masquerades under a different name.

In a static, homogeneous system a form of socialism can work quite well. Norway is a good example. Highly socialized, but the citizens are happy, productive, and genuinely like their system. But, it’s starting to crumble. They have a pretty open immigration policy, so things are changing, and not for the better.

This has always led me to wonder about the term “progressive.” How is the quest for a static system progressive? It would seem to me that the quest for the lowest common denominator might be called something else.

This very concept of a static system is always rejected eventually, I use China as an example. People need to compete it’s ground into our genetics. The idea of a non-competitive system is contrary to evolution. You can always spot any socialist approach by how it attempts to remove competition as an acceptable alternative. Participation trophys are a case in point.
- Allen L | 01/13/2008 @ 16:41
(haven’t the slightest idea what the XHTML stands for)

Take a look at the reverse of your monthly power bill.

Your base line rate covers part of your fee, followed by higher rates for above base line consumption.

This procedure was not specifically legislated in Sacramento

Rather, it has been established by a commission without public hearings.

See Item Six. Just another wake up call.
- LL | 01/13/2008 @ 17:31
Funny you should mention China, Allen, coz I was gonna do just that. I saw Point One in direct action during a business trip to China, specifically the bit that sez:

All person reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.

That was reality in China back in the early 90s. I had a full-time interpreter assigned to me by the Chinese government agency I was consulting for/with, and I was my interpreter’s first job out of college. We became fairly close during my ten-day stint in Beijing…or as “close” as one can be, under the circumstances. My interpreter was assigned to his ministry right out of college. No questions asked or even allowed…just “report here, at this time.” And he wasn’t happy about it, at all…especially when it came out in conversation that we (Westerners) were “allowed” to work for whomever we wanted. He had heard of this but didn’t think it was true, or even could be true. Perceptions, reality, and all that. Needless to say, we both learned a lot.

And Morgan…my career in IT led me to the same sort of conclusions you’ve arrived at, as well. Sometime we need to sit down and have those beers… and tell each other war stories about being “non-degreed” professionals…
- Buck | 01/13/2008 @ 19:16
Buck, you’re worth at least a couple bottles of Chimay Blue. I can pour it with no head, even if the glasses have been chilled in the freezer. If you know Chimay, you know that’s the boast of a REAL man.

We’ll have to figure out my lady’s schedule because she’s put me on notice that burning charcoal makes her barf. So we’ll grill the meat over propane if she can make it, which I hope she can, because she can appreciate a real thinking brain.

Allen, I think you’re right about these scandihoovian countries, partly because my blood tree runs pretty thick over there and I’ve been keeping up with this stuff. One thing bugs me about them, though, even if they do manage to function for awhile as a durable society. Those who live in there, think differently. And it’s not healthy. I think the first milestone to insanity sums it up the best…distinction between subjective & objective, is lost. Whatever it is they “know,” they know, there’s no further discussion needed even if nobody has offered evidence anywhere to support what is “known.”

Like Americans being a bunch of flabby dimbulbs. Granted, a lot of us are, but does every single European saying so, know it for a fact?

They are strongly motivated to think like children, based on what I’ve seen of how they act and the absurd ideas they jot down, sometimes above their signatures. Much more accustomed to fllowing instructions, than articulating personal beliefs based on personal observations of things.

I think their states have robbed them of their lives. Just a minute at a time, but still. Of course, that’s my opinion. Point is, I have the maturity to recognize that it’s just my opinion…whereas a lot of them over there, can’t make such a distinction. Whatever it is they feel is true, that they think those in authority will back up, and that a majority of their countrymen will also back up, is “true.”
- mkfreeberg | 01/13/2008 @ 19:52
I suppose this is my argument, socialism can work up to a point. Our family is a case in point. When the family got to Minnesota from Finland, the community created a socialist based system. It worked but they had the wit to realize that it was a waypoint along the way to viability.

Which actually is one of the beauties of this country. Hey go ahead create a local economic model for your community. If it works for you great! The problem I have is the top down approach which is non-dynamic.

Buck, I was sequestered in Socorro, where they still offer a real education at NMIMT.

Morgan, you guys need some steaks? I help on a buddy’s cattle drives. Happy to send ’em
- Allen L | 01/13/2008 @ 21:53
Buck, I was sequestered in Socorro, where they still offer a real education at NMIMT.

Rumor has it that NMIMT is THE best mining school in the country, although there are some folks in Wyoming that take issue with that. Or so I’ve heard. If you matriculated from this fine institution, Allen…my hat’s off to you. Hell, even if you just attended…my hat’s still off!

Morgan: Ya know, I haven’t been back to California in over five years now. But you’re making the proposition a LOT more viable!! 😉
- Buck | 01/15/2008 @ 16:58

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

On Reaching Across The AisleSunday, January 13th, 2008

On Reaching Across The Aisle
Sunday, January 13th, 2008