Dependence upon Youth in this Information Age

I have watched movies, television shows, and read about how some very successful CEO or businessman came to the realization that his life shouldn't be spent on making money. He learned that his life should be spent with his family or adventuring, in such a way that he is living life to the fullest. Do we as Americans have such a concept of life, that we should seek personal happiness before economic, or even political, success? I think most Americans believe that working extremely hard on their job will eventually result in personal happiness, and they believe so without being shown that hard work necessarily leads to personal happiness for oneself, and also for one's children and grand-children.

As another example, let us look at the college student who has the opportunity to go into graduate studies, possibly to earn a doctorate or Ph.D. in her preferred area of interest. She has no particular motivation to continue her education, because she does not feel that she wants to teach others, as of yet anyways. As she is pondering her future, she looks at alternatives, the most clear is that she simply not continue her education, but she does not see anything there for her; she sees an unknown area of possibility, and it is intimidating if not frightening. Her peers suggest that she could use her bachelor degree to go into work, or she could get into politics, or she could start a business. Since she has never explored work, politics, or business, she thinks that she has no possible life unless she gets a hirer education. This student is in the quagmire of formal education that some many college students seem to land in by pure accident; college students get degrees in something they like, like anthropology or literature, and they think that that degree necessitates that they get a job that requires that degree; these students resort to teaching in primary school students who may follow in their foot-steps.

This example is particularly heinous when we remember that, "a life unexamined is a life not worth living". Students are taught to maintain the status-quo of the society they grow up in, and they are encouraged to work for somebody else for the extent of their life; stagnation, or stasis, and dependency necessarily leads to collapse of any government. Is America headed for collapse because American schools are discouraging the entrepreneurial spirit? That is entirely possible, but that is for us to know when it is happening, should it happen at all. My point in showing the Dilemma of the Student, as well as the Dilemma of the Successful Man, is that American culture is not, if it ever was, based on examining one's own life, with the goal of correcting one's aim for happiness, to the likely exclusion of wealth, fame, and power.

This is not to say that the entrepreneurial spirit is somehow being bred out of American culture, or even that examination of one's life is uncommon. Rather, I am saying that as the entrepreneurial spirit decreases, it will result in fewer and fewer people holding more and more economic sway over the lives of others, particularly in the distribution of necessities, the access to communication, the access to luxuries, the access to jobs, and the access to positions in government. In other words, the fewer entrepreneurs their are, the more monopolistic and more centralized the economy will become, though the proper terminology may be oligopolism (from "oligopoly"). No economy last more than a life time when it is centralized, therefore an oligopolistic economy may last as long as the number of oligololists are controlling the economy. This situation is not good, because it gives rise to a greater and greater gap between those in economic and political power, and those who are working for the powerful and wealthy; this breeds class-hatred, which is easily magnified by a government that would finally centralize the economy, thus pushing the economic and political gap to the point of disaster. Again, this is no prediction of what may occur in America, because I am describing what effectively happened in Germany, Italy, and Russia during World War 2.

America, as well as most countries, has an extremely fast means of communication, such that men and women with the entrepreneurial spirit can make an enjoyable living from the comforts of a small town in the middle of nowhere; the Internet is the single greatest means of communication ever devised by Man, and it is utilized for commercial transactions at an incredibly fast rate, such that businesses could not make a profit without the speed of e-mails and massive databases. With the internet, young America entrepreneurs are able to live off of blogs, weekly Youtube video posting, and even selling camping gear through an online website. (Tangentially, the video game industry in conjunction with the internet have resulted in sub-cultural memes of the likes unimaginable before 2000.) The future of a stable American economy must involve some mixture of independent, small-business production and internet-based services, both for local maintenance of production(more exportation, less importation) and the ability to quickly find customers from around the world.

The capacity for the internet to provide information is so great that Mankind may be at or approaching a tipping point in the Information Age; the Information age may transition as fast as it began, only to explode into the cosmos at a greater rate of acceleration. The sky was the limit, now the government is the limit, but soon the speed of light may be the limit; I am not convinced that even light is a very difficult barrier to cross.

The future of Mankind, or at least America, is dependent upon young entrepreneurs who have a conscious grasp of the world, both as it is and how they want to change it. One must be a part of any future change for Mankind, and must actively support the youth in entrepreneurialism, or else countries like America will fall into the same quagmire as Rome: centralism and stasis. Romans in the Empire, after all, saw anything "new" as bad, preferring to remain conservative of traditional ways of doing things, seeking virtue for its own sake.

How to Slow the Inevitable Approach of Tyranny

I have sometimes wondered how we could have come so far here in America and yet tyranny is approaching the proverbial Front Door of America. Tyranny is not quite knocking, but he (Satan) is certainly getting pretty close.

America is not necessarily on the brink of tyranny, and that ought to be debated, but she is nonetheless embracing quite a few principles of, for instance, the Ten Planks of Communism, as presented by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. You can look them up on Wikipedia or Google (a.k.a. The Oracle) if you are curious.

Look at American political history. First, the Founding Fathers, in my opinion, sought to preserve the principles of the Declaration of Independence as long as possible in America. Therefore, they wrote and successfully had ratified the Constitution. The Constitution cannot prohibit tyranny in the long term, because the People can always be fooled inch by inch into accepting such tyranny as Social Security and the Draft. Propaganda is most certainly present today in American government schools (a.k.a. "public schools"), which the Constitution cannot prohibit on its own. God, working through good people, is the real source of our continued freedom.

Second, during Roosevelt''s Devus-Caesar-like reign of three terms as President, the Republicans were establishing beaucracies to slow him down. If an agency is ordered to do something by the President, the agents will first have to fill out all of this crap-to-prove-lawfulness, known as forms. I cannot at this time give you a detailed account, though I am sure that Wikipedia or some real researcher will be able to give the details. Again, The Oracle is your bestest of friends on the Interweb.

Now that we effectively have two governments, the Constitutionally set-up government and the Agentive/Beareaucratic/Departmental government, each has to agree before anything can get done. I will hereafter call the Constitutionally set-up government as the US government and the other as the Federal government. Think of it this way, the Feds can shoot everything that moves, whereas your US representatives can subsidize everything that moves. In either case, they both can kill things, but the second is the less violent and can actually claim Constitutionality as to its existence.

If I sounds a bit pessimistic, consider this. The Founding Fathers created the US government with interdependency-type restraints based on the principles of republicanism. The Republicans of Caesar's, I mean, Roosevelt's reign created the Federal government with independent restraints based on Collectivism, or better known as Slow Tyranny. Statism is Fast Tyranny.

While that accusation against Republicans may seem offensive to Republicans, it ought not be so. Republicans of Roosevelt's time did what they thought was appropriate, with the same concerns as the Mug Wumps (Republicans) of post-Civil War America had as the South was militarily occupied by the Union Army. Republicans have historically been a lot better than Democrats since Lincoln (a Republican) was in office. I hope that is sufficient to nullify any notions that I might somehow hate the Republican Party.


In the future, I will have to eventually define, in toto, the principles of republicanism as I see them. And no, I am not referring to the principles of the Republican party, because that would be irritatingly redundant for me; you can look those up via the GOP's website.

In the future, I will also have to write something on the division of the American government, regardless of how non-CC it may be.

In the future, I need to discuss the phrase, "consent of the governed", as used in the Declaration of Independence.



In Texas, the land of the free and home of the brave,
Joe