The Plausibility Chestnut

     We who write speculative fiction are regularly besieged by critics over plausibility. “Is that really possible?” they ask. “Could it happen in the ‘real world?’” Sometimes, the answer is “No.” At others, the answer is “No, but that’s irrelevant.” And at others, the answer is “What’s this ‘real world’ you’re talking about?”

     Speculative fiction is fiction that speculates! I should have thought that was obvious on its face. But then, obvious really means overlooked, doesn’t it?

     Critics and their hangers-on do a lot of overlooking.

     I got lambasted for Christine D’Alessandro. I got it again for Althea Morelon. The exceptional nature of those characters seemed irrelevant to my critics’ determination to pick nits. I can’t help wondering what kind of crap Malorie Cooper has had to put up with.

     Now, there is a downside to depicting super-competent female warriors. Most women simply aren’t equipped for combat, whether melee-style or ranged. They have disadvantages in strength, speed, endurance, and the ability to tolerate serious injury and keep fighting. But there are exceptions, whose exceptional nature ought to be obvious… oh, there I go again. A full-scale, lifelong dedication to physical conditioning and the acquisition of combat skills might conceivably result in a warrior as capable as Charlize Theron’s Lorraine Broughton, though we wouldn’t expect it of Taylor Swift or Sydney Sweeney.

     We certainly shouldn’t expect it of the Girl Next Door. Nor should we expect the Girl Next Door to be ready and able to protect herself against real-world male predators.

     The Girl Next Door should carry some defensive equipment, to be sure – a pepper spray, a Ken Onion assisted folding knife and a KelTec P11 with two extra mags strike me as about right for ladies in the beleaguered Northeast – but she should also expect the assistance of masculine help and call out for it at once. She should not carry a broadsword. (Do you know how hard it is to accessorize those things?)

     But we were discussing fiction.

* * *

     Genuinely entertaining, uplifting fiction cannot be about dead flies in the bottom of cracked teacups. It also cannot be about someone’s angst or his unfulfilled yearnings. Things must happen. Characters worth paying attention to must be challenged, must rise to the occasion, and must prevail, albeit at a price. Anything else is too dreary for me, and – I suspect – for most other readers of fiction.

     My sort of fiction requires heroes: characters of great stature, or at least great potential. Such people, male or female, are exceptions. You won’t find them on streetcorners. And if they cluster in a wholly fictional county, what of it? Birds of a feather and all that, remember?

     So plausibility, in the strict, real-world sense, must sidle over to make room for fictional heroes. There are some in the real world, to be sure, but they’re few. They don’t get a lot of air time or column-inches. Which, semi-ironically, is why there’s a stronger demand for fictional heroes than in many years.

     Of course, for those who disagree, there’s always “literary” fiction.

Uncorrectable

WARNING!
The following piece will contain a common profanity.
For today, I found that profanity unavoidable.
Read on at your own risk. * * *

     There are two kinds of people: those who believe that there are two kinds of people, and those who don’t.

     Yes, yes: it’s an old gag. But I’m an old man; what do you expect from the likes of me? Anyway, I got up humming an old song, one that everyone has heard but is light-years distant from “the charts” in our time: this one. Being analytically inclined and surrounded by people desperate for an explanation for our current state of FUBARity, I gave it some thought.

     What’s that? You don’t understand FUBARity? Aw, c’mon! FUBAR is older than I am! FUBAR is a companion concept to SNAFU: “Situation Normal: All Fucked Up.” That droll assessment is commonplace these days:

• We know things are fucked up;
• We also know that fucked-upedness is “normal;”
• So we relax.

     But we’re not supposed to relax when things are fucked up. We’re supposed to fix things. Common though it may be, fucked-upedness is an undesirable state. So let’s get to work!

     Wait: there’s a missing step in the above: We can’t just blindly “get to work;” we must first understand why things are fucked up. Where is the error, the mistake, the wrong turning that led us away from acceptable conditions into the land of the fucked-up? We must isolate that first and foremost.

     So we try, and are repeatedly thwarted. Our search leads us to people much like ourselves, except that… well, they aren’t. They don’t respond to citations of that essential ingredient in all investigations of fucked-upedness: reality. We shower them with actual data drawn from the experiences of men and nations, and they dismiss it! They talk around it; they shrug it off; they change the subject, hurl imprecations, or both. There’s no getting them to live in the same universe as we do.

     Some of them counter-shower us, sometimes with inane platitudes, but at other times with “studies.” The conclusions of those studies strike us as perverse. But given our inclination to respect systematic investigations of any sort, we trace those studies back to the people and institutions that emitted them, and we find… more fucked-upedness!

     There’s an enraging circularity about it all. It can drive a sane man mad, a peaceable man violent. We resist those inclinations and try again. After all, we’re talking to people much like ourselves. They must be reachable! But nothing changes.

     Presently we give up. We accept that though we may have found the problem – indeed, we most certainly have found it – we cannot fix it without violating the “rights” of those people who, after all, are much like ourselves. We shy back from the required means. We look for other measures, but in vain.

     For what we have found is FUBARity: that condition of being which is “Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition.”

     There’s a small dissonance in there. We recognize the fucked-upedness; it’s those who suffer it that don’t recognize it. But fixing the condition is what matters. Fixing it eludes us because of our respect for their “rights.”

     Our frustration knows no bounds.

* * *

     It’s time for a quote. This is one for which my source is hearsay. I’m told that the person who emitted it said it at a public appearance that I did not attend. I trust the person who repeated it to me, so I’ll give it to you as he did:

     “Savages have no rights.” – Ayn Rand

     Enormous dismay ensues. No rights at all? Not even the right to life? That can’t be right! Surely there’s some escape clause here.

     But there isn’t. The problem lies in the meaning of that term savages.

     A savage, in Rand’s lexicon, is someone who doesn’t recognize or honor rights as such. His ethical metaphysic is “What can I get away with?” Dangerous as individuals, savages are genocidally lethal when they band together. And there are bands of them ravaging our land even now.

     Savages yield only before overwhelming force. But we shy back from using force against them, because… well, they have rights! The right to life, at least. So running one over is out.

     But that yields the street to the savages. Unacceptable! What, then? Drive around them? Well, if possible… which it often isn’t. To get to where we must go, force will be required.

     You cannot concede rights to others who don’t concede yours.

* * *

     As you can surely tell by now, I’m not talking about the stereotype of a savage. That “black Sambo” figure in a loincloth with a bone through his nose blocks a lot of people’s thinking. I’m talking about people much like us in appearance and overall conduct, but who are willing to do anything and everything to get what they want politically. It doesn’t matter to them whose rights they must trample, or whether the end they seek is fatally unstable. They get their satisfactions from their political stances and those who share them. That’s the sustenance they seek: acknowledgement from their sort that they’re “good people.” Compared to that, what relevance has reality?

     There’s the core of FUBARity: it cannot be corrected by reference to reality. Those people who look like us and (mostly) dress like us yearn for acknowledgement that they’re good people much too strongly to be deflected by reason or evidence. Reality is, for them, an obstacle rather than a reference point. It must be defeated, and it will! Surely older and wiser heads who share their views are already working on it.

     I could go on, but I don’t think there’s a need. In closing, please have a look at two tweets: This one, which fancifully compares those people just like us to “large language models;” and this one, which invokes a term from systems theory for the self-referential defensive behavior of an institution that resolves to ignore reality to the extent it threatens the internal logic of the institution itself. Yes, they’re a bit fucked-up themselves, and they complicate something that’s really quite simple, but they illustrate how far reasonable people will go to explain the impenetrability of FUBARity.

     Have a nice day.

The Self-Correcting System

     When you break the big laws, you do not get liberty; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws. – G. K. Chesterton

     The Holy Grail of all designers, no matter what they design, is the self-correcting system. Decades spent in systems design and implementation taught me how ardently such systems are pursued… and how impossible they are.

     Actually, that’s an overstatement. A self-correcting system might be possible… if it had no inputs and no outputs, and if all it ever does is correct itself. It can’t do anything else, because that would require a “monitor and correct” subsystem to monitor and correct the “worker” subsystem. That in turn would require yet another “monitor and correct” subsystem to do the same for the other subsystems, which would require yet another “monitor and correct” subsystem, which would require yet another “monitor and correct” subsystem… oh, forget it.

     Any system that couples to the world outside itself will eventually break down. A system that doesn’t couple to the outside world is useless. Toss it into Plato’s Cave and forget about it.

     Man’s societies can’t be made perfectly self-correcting. Our attempts to do so have always had vulnerabilities. The most important of those vulnerabilities – the one that’s always targeted by the agents of destruction – is the set of rules that defines what it means for the system to work.

     Some such rules are made into laws. No murder! No stealing! No contract-breaking! No false witness! Simple rules like those are widely understood. Yes, some will break them, but as long as the overwhelming majority continue to believe in and support them, that majority will serve to correct the lawbreakers.

     The society will break down if the number of rulebreakers grows so large that the work of correcting them won’t allow the normal functions of society to continue. The more correcting is required, the less time, material, and energy remain for getting other things done. Imagine a society where 50% of people are criminals and the other 50% are law enforcement.

     But that’s not the only way a society can break down. It can also fail if too many rules become laws.

* * *

     Jamie Wilson has produced a fine, compendious piece on the importance of etiquette to liberty and civilization. The heart of the matter:

     When politeness weakens, institutions compensate. They add rules and procedures and signage, training, scripts, escalation protocols, and enforcement mechanisms. This expansion is not driven by malice, but by necessity. When informal, community- and self-enforced norms fail, formal control rushes in to fill the gap.
     In high-trust environments, rules are sparse because people regulate themselves. Courtesy absorbs friction before it escalates, apologies work, discretion works, and flexibility is possible because bad faith is the exception, not the expectation.
     As trust erodes, however, discretion becomes dangerous. Zero-tolerance policies replace judgment, and escalation replaces conversation. Enforcement by bureaucracies and government structures replaces negotiation. The result is a paradox familiar to anyone living in a bureaucratized society: the more formal rules are added, the worse public behavior becomes. Not because rules are evil, but because rules cannot substitute for internal restraint.

     But “formal control” – i.e., enforcement of norms by law – can’t do the job of self-control. In the nature of things, it cannot be enough. And self-control has been under sustained attack since the end of World War I.

* * *

     Chesterton’s glum reference to the “small laws” doesn’t address the problem of enforcement. He probably felt he didn’t need to go there; it “should” be “obvious.” It’s plain enough from the history of overregulated societies.

     The dismissal of prior norms for public conduct has produced a situation in which many Americans find going out of their homes distasteful or worse. The dismissal of norms for private conduct, which many hardcore libertarians are wont to shrug aside, may be even worse. It’s especially worrisome in a society that upholds the concept of privacy as a right.

     We’ve had some ghastly examples of what can occur behind closed doors. Jeffrey Dahmer. Ed Gein. Ted Bundy. There are many others that are less famous.

     Nothing could have stopped any of those men other than a forceful invasion of their private lives. Others are among us that have similarly decided that there are no rules, and we don’t know who or where they are. We won’t know until some mistake reveals their horrors. Matters have become serious enough that we must suspect that there are many of them.

     No, I’m not suggesting that mass murderers are consequences of the failure of etiquette. But the enervation of self-control, coupled to the premise that if it’s behind closed doors, it’s alright, is what makes their infamies possible.

     The social system cannot self-correct. It requires a reinstitution of norms, and law enforcement is not equal to that task. Their origin was in faith.

* * *

     When John Adams wrote:

     Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

     … he was expressing the premise required for a society to have both a high degree of liberty and a tolerable amount of order. For liberty to be not only possible but sustainable, the rules of order must be internal to us. They must be as self-enforcing as the law of gravity. Today, owing to the increasing disaffiliation from our previously common Christian faith and the norms it propounded, that self-enforcement has largely failed.

     See also Lynne Truss’s valuable little book Talk To The Hand.

Breakfast All Day

     [I’ve been tempted to use that phrase in a great many contexts. This morning I woke up actually thinking it. So here it is. If what follows fails to make it “make sense,” sorry! No refunds! – FWP]

     There are some very smart people saying some very penetrating things… and not being listened to. I’d imagine we feel many of the same things, including frequent sieges of weariness from “shouting into the wind.” Yet we keep doing it. Some of us die with such sentiments in our minds and mouths, unable to reach the keyboard for a final sally.

     Would you like to know the secret to universal peace and amity? Not the secret to universal happiness; I’m still working on that one. But we’ve got the peace and amity bit down pat. Here’s how you can get it:

Mind Your Own Business,
And Keep Your Business To Yourself.

     That’s it. That’s all it takes. It’s been clear for millennia. So why haven’t we achieved universal peace and amity? I can answer that one, too.

     Because we’re shitheads. Meddling shitheads. Each and every one of us carries around a demon whose mission on Earth is to interfere in other people’s lives. Some of us manage to master that demon. Others? Their demon masters them. And there’s no tolerating them.

     No, I’m not the first to make these illusion-shattering observations. Thousands, maybe millions of other people have offered them to the world. But they weren’t listened to. Many of those to whom they spoke simply waved them off: “Naah, he’s just another shithead.” And they went on trying to run others’ lives, or offering power to people whom they thought would do it for them.

     A great man of times past, Frederic Bastiat, expressed the essence of it compactly and brilliantly:

     There are too many "great" men in the world — legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.
     Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this very thing." True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.

     No one listened to him, either.

* * *

     A hot flash for my Gentle Readers: it is possible to have what you want, but there are requirements:

• You could make it yourself, beholden to no one;
• Someone else could make it for you, for a price.

     Real deep intellectual insight, eh? Maybe I should have it printed on a T-shirt. But it really is that simple. The trouble starts when you decide that you can force other people to give you what you want.

     That doesn’t apply solely to material things. Most other wants, like peace and privacy, are available on the same terms. You can make them, or buy them. At least you could, if it weren’t for all the meddlers.

     Meddling isn’t just irritating; it’s also expensive. Professional meddlers pile costs atop what it “should” cost to get what you want. Sometimes they tell you “No, you can’t have that” quite flatly. Punching them in the nose carries a cost, too. (Shooting them is frowned upon. Especially by them.)

     The great challenge of the man who would be free today is to escape the meddlers.

* * *

     If it weren’t for SpaceX, Mankind would have no hope at all.

     For a very long time, spaceflight was entirely the province of governments. Elon Musk and SpaceX have shattered that cartel. Spaceflight is now available to anyone with the money.

     Yes, it costs a lot, but that’s in the nature of things. It’s hard. It’s dangerous. There are no McDonalds up there. And the training required is no joke. So for the moment, access to space is an extreme “luxury good.” But most luxury goods grow more accessible over time: easier, cheaper, and available from more sources. So if present trends should continue, our descendants will have easier, cheaper, and more available access to space.

     But “present trends continuing” is a bad bet. There are too many meddlers to count on it. And they don’t want you to escape their grip.

     Governments are poised to clamp down on space travel. They don’t have to do so yet. They’ll wait until billionaires start looking at the Moon as a vacation destination and start planning Lunar playgrounds for themselves and others. When spaceflight stands at the doorstep of true popularity, governments will pounce. They’ll start nattering about “safety” and “the rule of law” and “the need for regulation.” That low-gravity condo you’ve been dreaming about will be made impossible for you to afford… or acquire.

     You see, they’d be unable to meddle with you if you’re a light-second and a half away. Meddlers can’t stand the thought of that, and governments are the quintessential meddlers. So they’ll make it impossible for you to get out there.

     Either we do away with these monstrosities that we call “necessary evils” right BLEEP!ing now, or they’ll strangle the last hope for human freedom while it’s still in its crib.

* * *

     Many years ago, I worked a weird shift: from roughly 4:00 PM to Midnight. It was tough to get used to. It separated me from most of the rest of the world. Others who’ve had to do similar things will tell you about it. Ask a friendly bartender.

     But it gave me an appreciation for the nearby diner that would serve breakfast all day. Waffles, pancakes, French toast! Oatmeal with cream and brown sugar! Sausages, eggs over easy! Bacon, bacon, bacon!!

     I came to love that place and the Greek immigrant family that owned it. On the rare occasions when it had to close, I would pout. I’d go home and do my best: toast an English muffin, slather it with butter and jam, and chow down. But I’d miss the home fries and the pretty waitress.

     Time passed, and I went back to working a regular daytime shift. But I retained my affection for that diner… and for breakfast foods. It came as a shock when the diner closed permanently. I had to know the reasons, as I wasn’t the only regular patron who loved it.

     The reason? Someone on the town planning / zoning board had a friend who wanted to build an apartment complex where that diner stood. So he persuaded the board, the board got together with the health authorities, and together they made it ever more difficult for the diner to stay in business. The builder came along with an offer for the locale. The family bowed to the inevitable, took the money, and moved on.

     I think I want a waffle with butter and syrup. Or maybe a three-egg omelet with lots of cheese and diced ham. And home fries! Lots of home fries.

     Have you ever had a craving like that, Gentle Reader? Better satisfy it now, before the meddlers get to it. There are a lot of them, you know. And shooting them is still frowned upon.

Education And “The Conditioners”

     From time to time I’m struck by the extraordinary insight of the great Clive Staples Lewis:

     Where the old [education] initiated, the new merely 'conditions'. The old dealt with its pupils as grown birds deal with young birds when they teach them to fly; the new deals with them more as the poultry-keeper deals with young birds— making them thus or thus for purposes of which the birds know nothing. In a word, the old was a kind of propagation—men transmitting manhood to men; the new is merely propaganda. [From The Abolition Of Man]

     And so it is. The origin of education as the Western world once practiced it is in the Socratic method:

1. Select a topic: a proposition in causation perhaps focused on an important event;
2. Question the causative forces that underlie it;
   1. Confront the proposition with clarifying questions;
   2. For each further proposition introduced:
      1. Question the causative forces that underlie it;
      2. For each further proposition introduced:
         1. Confront the proposition with clarifying questions;
         2. For each further proposition introduced:
            …

     Yes, the Socratic method is recursive – and with no guaranteed exit criterion. But that is part of its effectiveness: to instill in the student the inclination to look deeper. This is how a good teacher leads his student to form the habit of thought: the determination to seek reasons and explanations.

     In a classroom setting, the honest use of the Socratic method will often cause two (or more) students to differ on the reasons for something. A really good teacher will then strive to get the students to perpetuate the method, by questioning each other’s proposed explanations. If successful, this teaches the student three things of inestimable value:

• Differences of opinion are normal and tolerable;
• He will regularly confront such differences among his peers;
• Some propositions aren’t plumbable “all the way to the bottom.”

     Clearly, the Socratic method is a lot of work. It demands patience of both the teacher and the student. It also requires “guardrails:” prohibitions on personalities and indoctrination. Yet it is the foundation for acquiring facility with the one and only tool Man possesses that the lower orders do not: reason.

     Lewis saw the acquisition of both reason and a grasp of what he called “The Tao” – i.e., those properties of existence that cannot be established irrefutably through a reasoning process – as indispensable to the formation of character. Given what’s become of both education and human character over the century behind us, I’d say he was correct.

* * *

     What our “public” schools call “education,” outside of mathematics and the sciences, bears little relation to education by the Socratic method. It comes closer to indoctrination: This is the reason! Don’t you forget it! And no questions! The late Robert M. Pirsig provides a striking demonstration of this distinction in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

     But then, below the definition on the blackboard, [Phædrus] wrote, "But even though Quality cannot be defined, you know what Quality is!"
     and the storm started all over again.      "Oh, no, we don’t!"
     "Oh, yes, you do."
     "Oh, no, we don’t!"
     "Oh, yes, you do!" he said and he had some material ready to demonstrate it to them.
     He had selected two examples of student composition. The first was a rambling, disconnected thing with interesting ideas that never built into anything. The second was a magnificent piece by a student who was mystified himself about why it had come out so well.
     Phædrus read both, then asked for a show of hands on who thought the first was best. Two hands went up. He asked how many liked the second better. Twenty-eight hands went up.
     "Whatever it is," he said, "that caused the overwhelming majority to raise their hands for the second one is what I mean by Quality. So you know what it is."
     There was a long reflective silence after this, and he just let it last.
     This was just intellectually outrageous, and he knew it. He wasn’t teaching anymore, he was indoctrinating. He had erected an imaginary entity, defined it as incapable of definition, told the students over their own protests that they knew what it was, and demonstrated this by a technique that was as confusing logically as the term itself. He was able to get away with this because logical refutation required more talent than any of the students had.

     When an “educator” does such a thing, he’s rejecting the probing, questioning approach of the Socratic method and “laying down the law.” This obviously has nothing to do with developing a habit of thought or scrutiny.

     Of course, Pirsig / Phædrus had reasons for doing what he did to that class. He was attempting to show that his conception of Quality, if it has a place in existence, must be part of Lewis’s Tao — and that his students were overwhelmingly able to perceive it as such.

     Indoctrination is never appropriate under the guise of intellectual inquiry. Indeed, it’s the diametric opposite of inquiry as we understand it. Perhaps the tensions that drove Pirsig to his mental breakdown arose from his determination to assert undefinable Quality to an intellectual audience. But I digress.

* * *

     It’s possible that schooling as practiced today is incompatible with inquiry, and therefore with the Socratic method. One instructor / many students / an established syllabus and a schedule to keep: What are we to expect from such a situation when – or perhaps if — one of the Great Questions arises in the course of events? It seems that either the Question must be tabled indefinitely, or the instructor must give “the official answer” and march on.

     That’s no way to foster a habit of thought, Rather, it suggests that Authorities have already decided once and for all Why Things Are As They Are. Further inquiry would be at best pointless, at worst subversive.

     I could go on, but I think my Gentle Readers can do so for themselves.

     If you haven’t yet, get your kids out of the “public” schools.

The Era Of Universal Distrust

     Regard this, from CBS News:

BREAKING: The ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis, Jonathan Ross, suffered internal bleeding to the torso following the incident, according to two U.S. officials briefed on his medical condition.

— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 14, 2026

     Various persons on X are proclaiming it “proof” that Jonathan Ross was within his rights and his rules of engagement when he shot Renee Good. Others are saying “why believe it? It’s from the government.” Of course, those two groups align nearly perfectly with their prejudgments of the tragic event.

     But just after the event, a video was available that could be interpreted as Officer Ross shooting Mrs. Good without cause. One community of opinion claimed that to be irrefutable, while another argued that the perspective from which the video was shot made the matter unclear. Once again, there was near-perfect alignment of those judgments with their prejudgments of the justice of the act.

     And both communities have arguments of a sort for their stances.

* * *

     Time was, hard evidence was broadly trusted. “People lie; evidence doesn’t” was the watchword. That time has given way to advances in manipulative technology. No picture or video one hasn’t shot for oneself is guaranteed to be accurate. Arguments for disbelieving other sorts of evidence are plentiful. Belief in allegations and affirmations now derives from political or emotional premises.

     Even once-trusted “chain of evidence” procedures are no long assumed to be reliable. After all, the people maintaining those chains are employees of the State! Why wouldn’t they falsify records or give false testimony to protect their paychecks?

     We’re in a lot of danger, Gentle Reader. Our previous “high-trust society” is very near to a “zero-trust society” today. But without at least a modicum of trust in the benevolence and veracity of others, a society can’t function at all. Willingness to accept another person’s statements on his word alone is demanded of us several times every day.

     Yes, I’ve written about this before. The problem hasn’t gone away. No, I don’t have a solution. I do have quite a lot of fear.

* * *

     This is just a quickie, an “early-morning thought.” I couldn’t shake it, so I decided to write it out. Have you had thoughts along these lines? What conclusions did you reach, if any?

     If a “large” high-trust society has become impossible for us, what’s next? A lot of “small” societies of trust, based on community and personal acquaintance? Or a condition of perpetual suspicion?

     How much longer before the supermarket down the road becomes untrustworthy because the manager “isn’t one of us” -- ? Or before the contractor recommended to you for waterproofing your basement makes you uneasy because of his skin tone… or his name? What happens when whole occupations are regarded with suspicion because of a fraud rampant among them at some earlier time?

     Oh, right. We’re already there, aren’t we? Apologies, Gentle Reader. My memory isn’t what it was. But I’m still working to enlighten and edify you. Trust me on that.

There is no need in human life so great as that men should trust one another and should trust their government, should believe in promises, and should keep promises in order that future promises may be believed in and in order that confident cooperation may be possible. Good faith -- personal, national, and international -- is the first prerequisite of decent living, of the steady going on of industry, of governmental financial strength, and of international peace. -- Benjamin M. Anderson, Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914 -- 1946

Tyranny 101

     So! You have your eye on a career in Statehood, do you? You hope for a satrapy of your own? One you can enjoy lifelong, untroubled by the currents that roil the larger world, serene in the knowledge that “your” people love you and would never dream of rebelling against you? Well, my young friend: here at the Academy for Dominator Development, we’ve assembled a comprehensive program for the likes of you.

     Yes, our program is effective. It provides a complete education for the dictator-to-be. But it’s not an easy course of study. You’ll find yourself marveling in horror at the fates of the tyrants of yore. You’ll be expected to analyze the wherefores. Many a failed tyrant has spent his last moments wishing someone had counseled him against his follies. Ironically, in many cases someone did… and was summarily executed for his cheek.

     Let’s open the catalogue and have a look.

     The syllabus for the required introductory course, Stability of Regime, might suggest something other than a progressive programme. Rather than what you’d think would be the subject of a freshman-level course, it focuses on the elementary sins that have brought down mighty States. Also, it gives its overarching lessons in short, pithy phrases. You’ll look at the headings and scratch your dandruff. You’ll think “How did he / they not know that? It’s so elementary!” Yet those missteps have brought down failed States throughout history.

     How about this one: Don’t meddle with religion. You know that already, don’t you? Look at how many States have embroiled themselves fatally in wars with their neighbors over doctrinal differences, some of those differences finer than a red hair! Because its monarchs refused to let godly subjects alone, Europe didn’t know a moment’s peace for a thousand years. Royal families that had enjoyed centuries of hegemony were laid low over it.

     Then there’s this one: Don’t play favorites! Power requires the consent of those you rule. Once a ruler starts handing out privileges, exceptions from evenhanded justice, because the king owes this one money or fancies that one’s daughter, the jig is up. Your people will no longer think of themselves as “your people.” They’ll assign that status to those you let get away with their crimes… and out will come the torches and pitchforks.

     But this next one eludes all but the most insightful students. You might think it silly. After all, hordes of tyrants throughout history have done it. But where are those once mighty lords today, youngster? Do any still wield power? How about their descendants: what condition are they in?

     So Don’t fuck with the money!

     Money is to a nation what blood is to the body. It must be kept clean. It must flow freely. And above all, it must never be diluted! Yet the Sirens’ song of money manipulation is as indisputable as its fate is inevitable. When a monarch lays his ravenous hands on the coinage, he loses his reason… and often his head.

     If you tax with a light hand – never more than a tenth of the national product – it may pinch when you have a grand scheme to fund, but it won’t evoke unrest. The commoners are never more sensitive to their king than when the tax collector is on their doorstep. Besides, the history of grand schemes is anything but grand. That alone should be a stark warning to you.

     Yet there may come a day when you or some halfwit advisor concocts a scheme too beautiful to dismiss. It would solve a pressing problem! It would placate the restive and unruly! It would make your people love you all the more! But where are the funds for it to come from?

     And a demon in a gilt robe will whisper to you in the sweetest of tones, Why not debase the coinage?

     The seductive power of that suggestion is why Stability of Regime is an entrance-level course. You must understand the fury currency inflation would unleash. It dwarfs all else in statecraft. You must see it, in all its gory grandeur, and never feel it in reality. Else your reign will be doomed by your own cupidity and vanity.

     You may say to yourself, “I can get away with it.” You can’t. You may say to yourself, “Just this once.” That, too, is a lie.

     In all of recorded history, only one tyrant has resisted that lure: Napoleon Bonaparte. “I will pay cash, or nothing!” he proclaimed. He knew the importance of sound money, for the Revolutionary regime had demonstrated it by violating it. Had the rest of Europe not banded together to depose him, his descendants might rule France today.

     Stability of Regime is a one-semester course. It’s the prerequisite to all the Academy’s other courses of study. The textbooks are kept continuously available at the Academy bookstore. Yes, they’re hefty tomes for what seem simple lessons, but it takes a lot of pages to properly chronicle the errors of rulers past and present. Classes are held in the lecture hall at 8:00 AM. Bring pen and paper.

     Register at the desk to your right. Use black ink only. Tuition is due before classes begin on Monday. Cash only. No checks or credit cards. We will test your coin.