Free Trade? Fair Trade?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1253630057' post='1970982']
You probably shouldn't jump to conclusions on that. The data they thrive on and rejoice in are the truth of human behavior, based on human nature, a wondrous thing given to us by God. State economists? Not so much.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
So the only difference between those guys you mentioned, and these vicious 'state economists' is who happens to employ them? I'm sure some state economists are corrupt and have made a mess of things. I'm equally sure that there are corrupt and greedy private economists. There are also corrupt and greedy janitors that clean the Bay Street trading floor at night.
Generalizations of this sort should generally be avoided unless they can be backed up decisively.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 September 2009 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1253630301' post='1970985']
So the only difference between those guys you mentioned, and these vicious 'state economists' is who happens to employ them? I'm sure some state economists are corrupt and have made a mess of things. I'm equally sure that there are corrupt and greedy private economists. There are also corrupt and greedy janitors that clean the Bay Street trading floor at night.
Generalizations of this sort should generally be avoided unless they can be backed up decisively.
[/quote]

There's a big difference between the two, Nihil Obstat. The private economist doesn't have the insanely great and artificial power (power beyond what a free market would bestow) nor does believe that he has a plausible right, given by some aetherial "social contract," to nearly single-handedly enact policies that can destroy an entire economy. Nor does the private economist think he has the right to create money out of thin air. The State economist does. (Although he does these things thinking that he's [i]helping [/i]the economy.) The employer is not the question here. It is what they have the power to do, and what they think they have the right to do. And the extent of the damage they can cause by inflicting their policies on us.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 22, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1253633356' post='1970996']
There's a big difference between the two, Nihil Obstat. The private economist doesn't have the insanely great and artificial power (power beyond what a free market would bestow) nor does believe that he has a plausible right, given by some aetherial "social contract," to nearly single-handedly enact policies that can destroy an entire economy. Nor does the private economist think he has the right to create money out of thin air. The State economist does. (Although he does these things thinking that he's [i]helping [/i]the economy.) The employer is not the question here. It is what they have the power to do, and what they think they have the right to do. And the extent of the damage they can cause by inflicting their policies on us.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Aren't the monetary supply and the government separated under your system?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 September 2009 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1253639272' post='1971047']
Aren't the monetary supply and the government separated under your system?
[/quote]

Yes. In a free market, the currency or currencies are decided upon by what people want to use. And no, there would be no violent monopoly on what people may and may not use as currency, or what one is forced to accept as payment.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1253665895' post='1971242']
Yes. In a free market, the currency or currencies are decided upon by what people want to use. And no, there would be no violent monopoly on what people may and may not use as currency, or what one is forced to accept as payment.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Well there already is a disconnect. Economists employed by the state have a say in spending. Monetary supply is regulated by private economists.

You're trying to lump all economists into one giant group which is entirely unfair. Like every single profession known to man, some will be corrupt and greedy, and some will be good people. The more power that profession has, the more damage the corrupt ones can do. It's the nature of our world.

[Christopher Brandon]

I personaly think fair trade sounds more... fair. A gullible man can be robbed of his money due to ignorance of value brought on by supply and demand.

and free trade sounds more... free. regulation sounds comunist.

so It's up in the air for me.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 September 2009 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1253676804' post='1971310']
Well there already is a disconnect. Economists employed by the state have a say in spending. Monetary supply is regulated by private economists.

You're trying to lump all economists into one giant group which is entirely unfair. Like every single profession known to man, some will be corrupt and greedy, and some will be good people. The more power that profession has, the more damage the corrupt ones can do. It's the nature of our world.
[/quote]

Are you calling Bernanke and his merry band "private" economists? Saying the Federal Reserve is "private" is like saying Blackwater, or "the mercenary group formerly known as Blackwater" is "private."

Look at recent State economic staff. Observe who they worked for prior to working for the State. Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was CEO Goldman Sachs. Who sat on the TARP board? Henry Paulson. Who got a huge chunk of TARP money stolen from taxpayers and retirees through inflationary spending? Goldman Sachs. Coincidence? Tim Geithner was head of the New York Fed. Obama's special envoy, Richard Halbrooke? Worked for AIG. Helped to drive it into the ground. Now he's helping drive the United State economy into the ground with the same tactics. The State, the Fed, and major financials are all quite cosy with each other. How were the CEO's (linked to politicians at the hip) making 13 million dollars a year, while their companies were going bankrupt? Why did those banks receive TARP funds when 70% of the population opposed it? Why did Obama's men refuse to disclose the recipients of those funds? There's no distinction between "private" versus "public" when bankers and politicians are scratching each other's backs with favors and greasing each other's palms with money that isn't their own.

[quote]"You're trying to lump all economists into one giant group which isentirely unfair. Like every single profession known to man, some willbe corrupt and greedy, and some will be good people. The more powerthat profession has, the more damage the corrupt ones can do. It's thenature of our world."[/quote]

I'm lumping them into [i]two [/i]giant groups. One group makes artificial, unilateral adjustments to the economy from the top down, and the other does not. I am all in favor of the latter.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1253679134' post='1971332']
Are you calling Bernanke and his merry band "private" economists? Saying the Federal Reserve is "private" is like saying Blackwater, or "the mercenary group formerly known as Blackwater" is "private."

Look at recent State economic staff. Observe who they worked for prior to working for the State. Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was CEO Goldman Sachs. Who sat on the TARP board? Henry Paulson. Who got a huge chunk of TARP money stolen from taxpayers and retirees through inflationary spending? Goldman Sachs. Coincidence? Tim Geithner was head of the New York Fed. Obama's special envoy, Richard Halbrooke? Worked for AIG. Helped to drive it into the ground. Now he's helping drive the United State economy into the ground with the same tactics. The State, the Fed, and major financials are all quite cosy with each other. How were the CEO's (linked to politicians at the hip) making 13 million dollars a year, while their companies were going bankrupt? Why did those banks receive TARP funds when 70% of the population opposed it? Why did Obama's men refuse to disclose the recipients of those funds? There's no distinction between "private" versus "public" when bankers and politicians are scratching each other's backs with favors and greasing each other's palms with money that isn't their own.



I'm lumping them into [i]two [/i]giant groups. One group makes artificial, unilateral adjustments to the economy from the top down, and the other does not. I am all in favor of the latter.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
You just listed a bunch of corrupt economists. So what? I can list a bunch of corrupt doctors too. All it would mean is what I've said from the start, which is that every profession has corruption.
By the way, I believe that your original argument was that formal economic training is useless. Now it seems like you're saying instead that economists who work for the state are all scum.

[jonyelmony]

I am pro Free Trade government policies, but would always hope that i could personally always conduct my own matters with not just fairness but out and out generosity. Fair trade as the marketing scheme for say, oxfam is ok, but really no different to any other form of charitable act, without a massive change of heart in the entire population will be completly inneffectual. Fair trade in government poicy is nonsense, fair trade does not make people better off in the third world and that is not the real aim of such policies.


By the way, I would tend to agree Sternhauser with alot you have to say, though i would make some qualitifcations. Much of the mathematical formulations have been created to basically to confirm these arguments. Austrian Economists aversion to maths honestly makes it seem more like ideology then solid economics. All Macro Economics is garbage and honestly has made no progression since 1970, there we can agree. Anything important about the economy can really be explained on the micro level. Ironically enough, this realisation has been one of the first to be destroyed in the crises with economists of all sorts trying to come up with Keynsian solutions to economic policies. To say that Government intervention is never warranted is to be ignorant of the many cases for example Natural monopolies, externalities like climate change when Governement intervention can provide improvements. No government can stop Economic forces from exisiting, hw ever god government can harness them better. This whole financial mess basically comes from information problems between borrowers and lenders in the mortgage market and between banks which traded in these financial instuments. Governement regulation which creates transparency and helps price signals to reflect information better would be welcome additions and may not be considered "free" to some.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='jonyelmony' date='23 September 2009 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1253681098' post='1971339']
I am pro Free Trade government policies, [/quote]

I believe that is a contradiction. Insofar as the State is directly involved in an economy, there is interference backed up with violence.

[quote]By the way, I would tend to agree Sternhauser with alot you have to say, though i would make some qualitifcations. Much of the mathematical formulations have been created to basically to confirm these arguments. Austrian Economists aversion to maths honestly makes it seem more like ideology then solid economics.[/quote]

Austrians aren't averse to mathematical forumlas in and of themselves, but they must be used properly. Economics is too often used as a prescriptive science. That is not where it excels. It excels in being a descriptive science.


[quote]All Macro Economics is garbage and honestly has made no progression since 1970, there we can agree. Anything important about the economy can really be explained on the micro level. Ironically enough, this realisation has been one of the first to be destroyed in the crises with economists of all sorts trying to come up with Keynsian solutions to economic policies.[/quote]

Agreed.


[quote]To say that Government intervention is never warranted is to be ignorant of the many cases for example Natural monopolies, externalities like climate change when Governement intervention can provide improvements. No government can stop Economic forces from exisiting, hw ever god government can harness them better."[/quote]

To say that State intervention is sometimes warranted is to say that a certain group of men can somehow comprehend and direct the economy, an economy which is comprised of millions of economic decisions made every second by billions of people. That is the claim that State economists make. And it is an arrogant and untenable claim.

[quote]This whole financial mess basically comes from information problemsbetween borrowers and lenders in the mortgage market and between bankswhich traded in these financial instuments. Governement regulationwhich creates transparency and helps price signals to reflectinformation better would be welcome additions and may not be considered"free" to some.
[/quote]

This whole financial mess does not come from information problems. It comes from responsibility problems. The lack of responsibility was only made possible through the abomination of central banking. The information in the market was perfectly clear. Freddie Mac and Fannie May, State chartered morgage institutions, heard this: "You [i]will [/i]make these loans to subprime borrowers." Another piece of information the banks heard loud and clear: "Here is a phenomenally low interest rate, just for you. You can loan out money to anything you want, and you don't need to cover your loans by having anything in reserve, because the State, with its inflation-funded FDIC, has got your back. No worries!" Plenty of people were sounding the alarm bell on the fact that the "boom" was just a bubble. Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Jim Rogers. These Austrian economists were laughed at. And they were entirely correct.

"Creating transparency" is among the last thing that the State should do. No institution is better at clouding up clear waters than the State. The Federal Reserve was founded, in great part, to "keep prices stable." Talk about muddying waters by obscuring price signals. Nothing is more confusing than an agency which intervenes in the market to keep all prices where they are. Price fluctuations are precisely what help manufacturers decide when to produce more and when to refrain from producing. An agency that is dedicated to stifling this process, while actually inflating the money supply and thereby bestowing more purchasing power on its vendors than the whole market, is an economy's worst enemy.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm quite free market, but even I can say that some government action is necessary. Personally I like having a police force, a dedicated firefighting profession, and a postal service, all of which are government monopolies (save postal, which is nonetheless very monopolistic).
Also, and this is out of character for Americans (good thing I'm not one) I actually do support the Canadian healthcare system. Obviously I think there are ways to improve it, but I think it works. The numbers back me up

To return to the original question, I decided to vote other. Free trade has been abused, fair trade is a system that I mistrust, but it doesn't have to be one or the other. Responsible free trade.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1253679977' post='1971335']
You just listed a bunch of corrupt economists. So what? I can list a bunch of corrupt doctors too. All it would mean is what I've said from the start, which is that every profession has corruption.[/quote]

How many of those doctors can harm everyone in the country?

[quote]By the way, I believe that your original argument was that formal economic training is useless. Now it seems like you're saying instead that economists who work for the state are all scum.
[/quote]

My original argument was that formal economic training in the current school of Keynesian/monetarist thought is useless. Unless your career goals include destroying the economy of an entire nation. In that case, it is indispensable.

Not all State economists are scum. There are some very well-intentioned, highly-educated and intelligent people who are striving with every fiber of their being to "do a good job." Their high degree of integrity does not change the fact that they are diligent bricklayers on the road to economic hell.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1253682992' post='1971353']
I'm quite free market, but even I can say that some government action is necessary. Personally I like having a police force, a dedicated firefighting profession, and a postal service, all of which are government monopolies (save postal, which is nonetheless very monopolistic).
[/quote]

Nihil, forgetting for a moment the moral implications of funding operations with money taken with violence or the threat of violence, let's look at the practical aspect. Why could those services (physical protection, fire protection, and correspondence carrying) not be provided by private, voluntarily-funded companies? They are, in many places. San Francisco is home to a private, armed police force which operates not unlike an insurance company. They are funded by businesses, and they actually protect the lives and property of the people who pay them, without getting sidetracked by violently arresting people for committing sins. During the wildfires, the most effective fire protection was provided by private companies who had contracted with homeowners for such just a contingency. The owners who had signed up did not have their homes burned down, as they were rapidly saturated with flame retardants. In the United State, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when ambulance services were being privatized. "People will bleed to death waiting for help!" As it turned out, the prices went down, and the speed of service and quality of equipment rose dramatically.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[jonyelmony]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1253682236' post='1971347']
I believe that is a contradiction. Insofar as the State is directly involved in an economy, there is interference backed up with violence.
[/quote]

Your right it is sorta a contradticition, but I am refering to the Governments policy to move away/stay out of trade. So if a governement decided to cut tariffs i would be happy with that. I was also trying to differentiate what the idea people should be able to conduct economic activity freely to the idea that i personally would take advantage of all those economic freedoms





[quote]
To say that State intervention is sometimes warranted is to say that a certain group of men can somehow comprehend and direct the economy, an economy which is comprised of millions of economic decisions made every second by billions of people. That is the claim that State economists make. And it is an arrogant and untenable claim.
[/quote]

You do not need to comprehend the millions of decisions that are made by billions of people, all you need is to understand the decisions which are made in a particular market.


[quote]
This whole financial mess does not come from information problems. It comes from responsibility problems. The lack of responsibility was only made possible through the abomination of central banking. The information in the market was perfectly clear. Freddie Mac and Fannie May, State chartered morgage institutions, heard this: "You [i]will [/i]make these loans to subprime borrowers." Another piece of information the banks heard loud and clear: "Here is a phenomenally low interest rate, just for you. You can loan out money to anything you want, and you don't need to cover your loans by having anything in reserve, because the State, with its inflation-funded FDIC, has got your back. No worries!" Plenty of people were sounding the alarm bell on the fact that the "boom" was just a bubble. Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Jim Rogers. These Austrian economists were laughed at. And they were entirely correct.

"Creating transparency" is among the last thing that the State should do. No institution is better at clouding up clear waters than the State. The Federal Reserve was founded, in great part, to "keep prices stable." Talk about muddying waters by obscuring price signals. Nothing is more confusing than an agency which intervenes in the market to keep all prices where they are. Price fluctuations are precisely what help manufacturers decide when to produce more and when to refrain from producing. An agency that is dedicated to stifling this process, while actually inflating the money supply and thereby bestowing more purchasing power on its vendors than the whole market, is an economy's worst enemy.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Well, while I agree that mis placed social goals and moral hazard (though i think the implicit guarantee was worht then the explicit deposit insurance considering the crises began outside the conventional banking system) influenced precipitated the crises. It does not explain how worthless financial products became very valuable, remebering they very often ended up on the books of organisations without implicit guarantees. I would be happy for governments to regulate the over the counter fincnaial products to make sure the majority of trade occurs in arenas with clear price signals, that is what i mean by transparency.


Also when a Central bank says price stability, they are not intevening to stop prices movie around, they are attempting to influence money supply so that it inflation is with in easily predictable bands so that people are informed when a price change is a real shock. Whether they are any good at this is a different debate but they are defiantly not in the business of trying to prevent real changes in price occuring.

Edited September 23, 2009 by jonyelmony

[jonyelmony]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1253684097' post='1971363']
Nihil, forgetting for a moment the moral implications of funding operations with money taken with violence or the threat of violence, let's look at the practical aspect. Why could those services (physical protection, fire protection, and correspondence carrying) not be provided by private, voluntarily-funded companies?
~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Voluntary funding for public goods allways ends up in underfunding. Everyone's incentive is to let everyone else provide funding, so while a private police force may be willing to come to your house if your house if your being robbed and willing to pay, who would give them the funds to investigate the russian mobsters up the road? Or while you have noted that houses that paid for extra private fire fighters were saved, but how many others relied on the governments fire fighters to make sure the fire was in large was contained so at to not become a threat to more houses?

Edited September 23, 2009 by jonyelmony

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='jonyelmony' date='23 September 2009 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1253686061' post='1971380']
Voluntary funding for public goods allways ends up in underfunding.[/quote]


Forgive me if I am wrong, but it appears that you are heading in a particular direction with that statement.

The end does not justify the means. If a thing can't be done without violence, does that mean that violence as a means of achieving that end is therefore justified? Consequentialism is a heresy. I know that you aren't deliberately embracing consequentialism, but I want to point out that that is where your current line of reasoning might lead.

If a good or service cannot be funded voluntarily, then the individuals who demand it really do not have a right to that good or service. When you insert coercion into a marketplace, you cease to have a marketplace. You have robbery, with some spoils leftover for their respective rightful owners.

As it stands, the statement you made is untrue. Everything, in the long run, can be considered "public goods." If I wash my hands, and thus prevent the spread of the dreaded swine flu, do I have the right to force people to compensate me for my labor in washing my hands? "Everyone" benefits, after all. Kidding (somewhat?) aside, all goods and services are consumed by individuals. Just because I do something that benefits all or most individuals in a society does not mean that I suddenly have a right to force everyone to compensate me.

I guarantee that if the State got out of the road racket, we would not be whipping donkeys to slough our carts through muddy ruts. If it is profitable to maintain a road, someone will step in to make a buck. If it is not profitable, then why have it? There is at least one stretch of road in California that is less congested, actually turns a profit, and is better maintained than State roads.

[quote]Everyone's incentive is to let everyone else provide funding, so while a private police force may be willing to come to your house if your house if your being robbed and willing to pay, who would give them the funds to investigate the russian mobsters up the road?
[/quote]

Who needs to investigate the Russian mobsters? Does your desire to have them investigated mean that you can take my money at gunpoint for that purpose? Let the people who need to have them investigated pay for it. I don't get involved in their business, and they don't get involved in mine. If they do take an interest in offering me "protection services," and do the same for enough other business owners, I think a bit of a coalition could be formed. A mob henchman isn't profitable to his capo when he's occupying a bodybag. Nor is the store they destroy in a reprisal profitable to them. That conflict would sort itself out due time, especially if their activities were, for the most part, decriminalised. As it is now, how many busts against the Russian mob has the FBI made in the past 30 years? Have they even been able to catch any of the murderers at Waco, yet? No. No, they're not very efficient in that regard. It's not due to underfunding, either. The public just doesn't demand justice.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1253684097' post='1971363']
Nihil, forgetting for a moment the moral implications of funding operations with money taken with violence or the threat of violence, let's look at the practical aspect. Why could those services (physical protection, fire protection, and correspondence carrying) not be provided by private, voluntarily-funded companies? They are, in many places. San Francisco is home to a private, armed police force which operates not unlike an insurance company. They are funded by businesses, and they actually protect the lives and property of the people who pay them, without getting sidetracked by violently arresting people for committing sins. During the wildfires, the most effective fire protection was provided by private companies who had contracted with homeowners for such just a contingency. The owners who had signed up did not have their homes burned down, as they were rapidly saturated with flame retardants. In the United State, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when ambulance services were being privatized. "People will bleed to death waiting for help!" As it turned out, the prices went down, and the speed of service and quality of equipment rose dramatically.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Show me a better system- proven better- than public funding, and I'll consider changing my mind.
What about a national military? Or do you want it to be up to businesses to protect the entire nation?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 11:00 AM' timestamp='1253718036' post='1971462']
Show me a better system- proven better- than public funding, and I'll consider changing my mind.[/quote]

Why not call "public funding" what it is, instead of using the euphemism? It is money taken by force or threat of force.

My answer to the gentleman above is my answer to you, as well. With this addition: read 1 Samuel 8.

[quote]What about a national military? Or do you want it to be up to businesses to protect the entire nation?
[/quote]

That presumes that the United State military has actually protected America in the past 180 years from a real possiblity of invasion and occupation.

Of course I want individuals to provide for their own defense voluntarily! Any society which cannot defend itself without using violence or the threat of violence against non-violent people and/or enslaving them to fight for them is a society that has absolutely no moral claim to a continued existence.

Who feeds, clothes and houses an entire nation? Individuals acting in voluntary exchanges with each other. Would you say that food, clothing and housing are so important that "Surely, they cannot be left to [i]private enterprise[/i]?" I witnessed the results when the State tried to control those things. The fact that the State currently has a violent monopoly on defense services is not a proof that they are effective or that its existence is moral.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1253723015' post='1971514']
Why not call "public funding" what it is, instead of using the euphemism? It is money taken by force or threat of force.

My answer to the gentleman above is my answer to you, as well. With this addition: read 1 Samuel 8.



That presumes that the United State military has actually protected America in the past 180 years from a real possiblity of invasion and occupation.

Of course I want individuals to provide for their own defense voluntarily! Any society which cannot defend itself without using violence or the threat of violence against non-violent people and/or enslaving them to fight for them is a society that has absolutely no moral claim to a continued existence.

Who feeds, clothes and houses an entire nation? Individuals acting in voluntary exchanges with each other. Would you say that food, clothing and housing are so important that "Surely, they cannot be left to [i]private enterprise[/i]?" I witnessed the results when the State tried to control those things. The fact that the State currently has a violent monopoly on defense services is not a proof that they are effective or that its existence is moral.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
So what is the role of the state? Or are you an anarchist?
By the way, I'm going to continue to call it public funding because "money taken by force or threat of force" is a totally loaded term. Is 'public funding' loaded too? Maybe. Give me a better term, a neutral term, and we'll use that.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1253726744' post='1971542']
So what is the role of the state? Or are you an anarchist?
By the way, I'm going to continue to call it public funding because "money taken by force or threat of force" is a totally loaded term. Is 'public funding' loaded too? Maybe. Give me a better term, a neutral term, and we'll use that.
[/quote]

I have to admit, I say with J.R.R. Tolkien,

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! [[i]Editor's note: Tolkien is joking, here. Just wanted to clarify that[/i].] If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council,Winston and his gang,' it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.

Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know [i]who[/i] their master is. The medievals were only too right in taking [i]nolo episcopari[/i] ['I do not wish to be made a bishop'] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop ...

Well, cheers and all that to you dearest son. We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us). But there is this comfort: otherwise we should not [i]know[/i], or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water.Also we have still small swords to use. 'I will not bow before the Iron Crown, nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.' Have at the Orcs, with winged words, hildenaeddran (war-adders), biting darts - but make sure of the mark, before shooting."





[url="http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/000725.html"]Tolkien's Letter.[/url]

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser