Outside The Domain

     When I was much younger, I tended to think in universal terms. That’s common among the young and bright. We grasp a powerful idea; we see its possibilities for improving things; and we want to apply it everywhere, to everyone. The appeal of a powerful idea stems from its apparent prospects.

     But ideas are human artifacts. Humans being not universal but partial, everything we produce is partial as well. And anything partial will have a proper domain: a set of conditions within which it applies, but not outside it. Outside its proper domain, the idea will become irrelevant or worse.

     An idea doesn’t float free of all other things. It’s founded on premises about the natures of the things it addresses, and about reality itself. An idea divorced from its foundation premises is worthless if not destructive.

     This is so basic that we never think about it. We merely live in it, as we live in a particular space and time. Because of that, when we step beyond our habitual space and time, we all too easily lose our moorings. The ideas we carry around with us, largely unexamined but relied upon even so, can become our enemies.

     The idea I have in mind this morning is one of the greatest ever propounded. It made possible the emergence of Western Civilization. Without it, we would still be in Hobbes’s “state of nature,” in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Indeed, before the earliest, incomplete versions of the idea were enunciated, that’s exactly what Mankind endured.

     That idea is the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

* * *

     The Golden Rule is founded on an unspoken assumption: i.e., that the unnamed “others,” were your position and theirs exchanged, would do unto you as they would have you do unto them. But how can you know what they would “do unto you?” Well, they might already have done it. That would be applicable to persons near to you – your neighbors — and to others with whom you’ve interacted in the recent past. For all others, it would require fresh interactions: not one, but enough of them to be reasonably sure of them.

     The famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” studies provide a way of arriving at the answer:

1. Be benevolent upon initial interaction.
2. On further interactions:
   1. If they were benevolent toward you in the previous interaction, be that way toward them;
   2. Else be hostile or aloof toward them.

     For you cannot maintain a benevolent posture toward one whose response is to attack or exploit you. That’s suicide, albeit prolonged. Christ Himself, the formulator of the Golden Rule, said so in the Sermon on the Mount:

     Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. [Matthew 7:6]

     The Redeemer wasn’t talking about animals. He was defining the domain of application for the idea He enunciated next: The Golden Rule. For that Rule is only applicable within a context of reciprocity. Should reciprocity fail, you must withdraw from further interaction, at least for the present.

     This has implications for many settings.

* * *

     The greater part of any man’s learning is done by doing: i.e., by living, experiencing, and coping with necessities and opportunities as they arise. That’s equally true for Robinson Crusoe and for persons in an advanced First World society of many millions. Among the things we learn is the domain of application of our personal benevolence: when it applies, and to whom.

     Everyone capable of comprehending the crap here at Liberty’s Torch is familiar with the concept of the enabler: one who makes it possible for some other person caught in a pattern of destructive behavior to continue in that pattern. Among the things we learn through experience is which of our fellows are enmeshed in such a pattern, and whether they can do so due to the contributions of an enabler. Many Americans can count one or more such persons among their acquaintances.

     No decent person actively wants to be an enabler. Yet a great deal of destructive behavior is possible only because enablers make it so. Moreover, the idea applies at scale: to individuals and to whole societies as well.

     First World societies were premised on ideas of great power: from Christ’s message to the Enlightenment, and more. They worked, when they worked, because they were “inside the domain of application.” That is, the persons who held them lived and worked among other persons who held them. Exceptions were few and reliably dealt with.

     But when individual responsibility was pushed aside for collective responsibility – notions that “society is to blame” rather than the actor for his bad actions – it changed the game. Suddenly everyone but the bad actor was “on the hook” for disruptive and destructive behavior. Mass immigration from Third World countries to our own has highlighted the perniciousness of that change, but it was already at work before the tides of Third Worlders reached our shores.

* * *

     Hearken to an unusually perceptive and intelligent young woman:

     White males have ENORMOUS difficulty in not projecting their nature onto others and so will always do so to some degree or another. They seem almost incapable of grasping that difference. And they THINK they know, but they rarely do.
     If you think I'm wrong, and if you're a White fella I just know ya do, ask yourself just how much of your suffering... how much of your blood and treasure, as a person, as a culture, as a genetically distinct group of people, has been spent with the expectation that they are as you are.
     That if you just spent more, if you just tried harder, if you just found a way, if you just did this, if you just did that that the outcome would be different because if if they're not YOU that they're enough *like* you that there's a bridge that could be crossed.
     And you might be like "Well, we spent an awful lot, but we learned eventually..." and THAT RIGHT THERE is an example of how different you are because they would have NEVER done that for you. Never, not once, not in all of history.
     They *started* with the assumption that they would never do that for you, and they never have, but it's taken you decades and trillions to JUST NOW come to that realization, and most of you *still* don't get it.

     Black Dumpling has laid it out plainly.

     For the umpteenth time, I’m put in mind of a passage from C. S. Lewis:

     If Ransom said nothing, it was because he could not speak. He saw a man who was certainly not ill, to judge from his easy stance and the powerful use he had just been making of his fingers. He saw a man who was certainly Weston, to judge from his height and build and coloring and features. In that sense he was quite recognizable. But the terror was that he was also unrecognizable. He did not look like a sick man: but he looked very like a dead one. The face which he raised from torturing the frog had that terrible power which the face of a corpse sometimes has of simply rebuffing every conceivable human attitude one can adopt towards it. The expressionless mouth, the unwinking stare of the eyes, something heavy and inorganic in the very folds of the cheek, said clearly: “I have features as you have, but there is nothing in common between you and me.” It was this that kept Ransom speechless. What could you say—what appeal or threat could have any meaning—to that?

     [From Perelandra]

     Ransom had come face to face with something that was wholly Other. It was not Weston as Ransom had known him. Indeed, it was not a man as he knew men to be, but an entity that shared nothing with men but Weston’s shell. Ransom knew at once that there could be no arguing nor bargaining with it.

     Our problem with those who disdain the key premises of our society – responsibility, honesty, good will toward others – is not quite as severe as Ransom’s. However, it requires a comparable quality of understanding. We cannot treat them as though they were “just like us, but misguided.” They lie outside the domain.

A Low-Energy Monday

     Good morning, Gentle Reader. I’m coming off an extremely trying weekend. (Why did I look forward to weekends when I was working? I can’t remember.) So, rather than produce an essay of the usual sort, I’d like to make a couple of comments on a piece you might find notable.

     This piece from the U.S. edition of the Guardian is about a year old, but it’s valuable even so as an illustration of the Left’s driving need to politicize everything:

     Today’s extremist styles are more diverse and more subtle. Beyond T-shirts that advertise blatant racism, polo shirts with coded symbols create a shared in-group identity and signal support of violence to other believers. Tradwife-style prairie dresses and beauty regimens promote conservative visions of family. Clothing is a powerful tool to spread fascist ideas to promote authoritarianism and recruit new members to this cause.
     […]
     This new fashion no longer seeks to shock or to antagonize, but to appeal to a sense of identity and belonging, said Monica Sklar, associate professor of textiles, merchandising and interiors and curator of the Anne Barge Historic Clothing and Textiles Collection at the University of Georgia. “The idea is not being quite a subculture but to be embedded in the power structure. Instead of coding things to move away from the masses, this fashion is coding things to move into the masses,” and this is a purposeful shift.
     […]
     These styles not only allow their wearers to blend in, but they also play a role in normalizing an aesthetics of radicalism and violence. Sociologist and American University professor Cynthia Miller-Idriss, who studies extremism and polarization, has written that “it is simply much harder to recognize ideas as hateful when they come in an aesthetic package that doesn’t fit the image people hold in their heads about what white supremacists look like”. When the radical right looks like the mythical boy and girl next door, it’s hard to know who can be a threat.

     The whole article is like that. But savor the ironies.

     The Left promotes an all-embracing uniformity among its allegiants. They must think alike. They must speak alike. They must associate solely with other Leftists. And to an extent unimagined by the individualist-oriented Right, they must look alike.

     The article makes no mention of Leftist fashion preferences, of course; that would be wrong. But consider the Bertholt Brecht-inspired outfit that dominated Communist chic in the early Twentieth Century:

     Bertholt Brecht, whose play Drums in the Night was first staged in Berlin in 1922, when he was twenty-four, wrote political allegories. He was attracted to Communism by its violence, as he was to American gangsterism, and his friend Arnolt Bronnen to fascism; Brecht designed his own ‘uniform’, the first of the Leftist outfits–leather cap, steel-rimmed glasses, leather coat.

     [Paul Johnson, Modern Times]

     …and of the uniformity among Leftist street activists of our time in shabby dressing and cramming as many piercings as they can into their faces. Then there are the masks… but I digress.

     The article also illustrates how far from actual scholarship our universities have gone. “Associate professor of textiles, merchandising and interiors” -- ? There must be a quote somewhere about this… ah, I have it here:

     “I don’t like to be called ‘Doctor.’ ”
     “Sir?”
     “Oh, I’m not offended. But when they began handing out doctorates for comparative folk dancing and advanced flyfishing, I became too stinkin’ proud to use the title. I won’t touch watered whiskey and take no pride in watered-down degrees. Call me Jubal.”
     “Oh. But the degree in medicine hasn’t been watered down.”
     “Time they called it something else, so as not to confuse it with playground supervisors. ”

     Once again, RAH is “on point.”

     It has been said many times that to confuse their opponents, Leftists routinely accuse them of whatever it is that they are currently doing. Hold onto that observation. It can keep you properly oriented when dealing with such adversaries. Remember how Islamic activists cry “Peace! Peace! We are for peace!” as they attack and maul their targets?

     Have a nice day.

For The Feast Of St. Francis of Assisi

     [Today, October 4, 2026, is the 800th anniversary of the death of Saint Francis of Assisi. October 4 is the feast day on which the Church honors the great “mendicant saint” of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Saint Francis brought not only a great ardor to Christian evangelism, but a wholly new style: one that had more in common with the ministry of Jesus than the immensely rich and powerful medieval Church could countenance. Yet few of the Church’s saints have inspired greater devotion.

     What follows first appeared at Liberty’s Torch on July 12, 2015. -- FWP]

---

     Though it has been called apocryphal, Saint Francis of Assisi is reputed to have said:

     “At all times, preach the Gospel. When necessary, use words.”

     The notion of evangelism without verbal preachment comes as a surprise to many. To some it’s a disagreeable surprise. If every Christian is charged with some portion of the Great Commission, surely we’re expected to tell others what Jesus said. At least, that’s how the usual reasoning runs. After all, how can we pass along the Word of God if we’re not to use words?

     That’s not totally incorrect. However, it runs into a common problem – and by “common” I mean “near to universal.” For Christians differ from non-Christians only in our profession of faith and the commitment it implies. In other regards we are much like our non-Christian brethren. The most important of these is our fallibility.

     Fallible means capable of error. That’s been the case with every man who’s ever lived. (“Man” is inclusive of both sexes, ladies, so don’t give yourselves any airs.) Note the similarity to the word fallen, more commonly used in theological talk. To have fallen is to have erred, whether willfully, through ignorance, or by accident.

     We are all fallen. Only two exceptions exist, one of whom was born Immaculate and the other of whom was the Son of God. As for the rest of us, few go any significant interval without falling, whether to little or great effect. Jesus reminded us of this rather pointedly:

     Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye, and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then thou shalt see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye. [Matthew 7:1-5]

     He could not have told us more clearly to look first to the health of our own souls. Inasmuch as no one this side of the veil of Time is ever absolutely sinless and perfectly resistant to temptation, His instruction pretty much precludes judging others. That makes verbal preachment something of a problem.

     However, being a good example is possible to all of us.

---

     Saint Francis of Assisi was known for his embrace of poverty and utter simplicity. His evangelism was largely by example. An illustrative story about his style of evangelism concerns a brother in a monastic order where Francis had taken lodging. One day the young monk begged Francis for permission to accompany him on a day’s preaching. The saint assented, and they went forth from the monastery at daybreak.

     First they came upon a group of men laboring in the field. Francis said “Let us work beside them,” which they did, in silence, for several hours before passing onward.

     Next they came upon a village where they found a group deep in prayer. Francis said “Let us pray with them,” which they did, in silence, for another hour before passing onward.

     Late in the day they entered a village where a wedding celebration was in progress. Francis said “Let us rejoice with them,” which they did. At last dusk was upon them and it was time to return to the monastery.

     When they had returned to the monastery, the young monk said to Francis, “Brother, was it not your intention to preach today? Yet we spoke not a word of preachment from departure to return.” Francis smiled. “Brother,” he replied, “this day we have done nothing but preach, from dawn till dusk.”

     Those are the very definition of “words to live by.”

---

     The great enemy of verbal preachment is, of course, hypocrisy. He who dwells in darkness can never draw others into the light with words. They will observe his behavior, note the contradiction to his words, and pass on unchanged.

     However, success breeds emulation. The Christian ethos -- faith in God and the rightness of His Commandments; hope of an afterlife of eternal bliss; respectful, appropriate charity toward others whom God places in one’s path – is the one most conducive to success in life. He who commits to that ethos and lives it sincerely will draw emulators and students as surely as the sunflower turns its face toward the Sun.

     This course does not free us from our susceptibility to temptation. Every day presents fresh opportunities to fall from grace, and rare to nonexistent is the man who resists without fail. But this is the reason humility is so vital to a Christian. The first, all-important step in accepting the divinity of Christ and committing oneself to the Christian ethos is accepting one’s own fallibility. That implies an obligation to recognize and admit one’s sins, to repent of them, and to strive not to repeat them.

     Saint Francis of Assisi knew temptation:

     Let us not imagine that saints are free from the vicissitudes common to human life, which includes moments of happiness and frustration, dangerous temptations and courageous stands. It was no different with Saint Francis, portrayed as «the always happy brother», courteous, who lived a mystical union with all creatures, whom he considered his brothers and sisters. But at the same time, he was a person of great passions and profound rage when he saw his ideals betrayed by his brothers. His foremost biographer, Friar Tommaso da Celano, described with cruel realism that Francis suffered temptations of violent lust, that he knew how to symbolically sublimate.

     There is, however, a fact that pious Franciscan historiography hides, but that is well documented by historical critique, and that is known as the great temptation. The last five years of Francis’ life (he died in 1226) were marked by deep anguish, almost desperation, and the grave illnesses that afflicted him, such as malaria and blindness. The problem was objective: his ideal of life was to live in extreme poverty and radical simplicity, divested of all power, and sustained only by the Gospel read to him without the interpretation that often shroud its revolutionary meaning.

     As it happened, in a few years his lifestyle captivated thousands of followers, more than five thousand. How to shelter them? How to feed them? Many were priests and theologians, such as Saint Anthony. His movement had neither structure nor legality. It was purely a dream taken seriously. Francis understood himself as a novellus pazzus, a new madman that God wanted for the very wealthy Church, led by Pope Innocence III, the most powerful of all popes throughout history.

     Beginning in the Summer of 1220, he wrote several versions of a rule that were all rejected by the gatherings of the fraternity. They were too utopic. Frustrated and feeling useless, he decided to renounce leadership of the movement. Filled with anguish and without knowing what else to do, he found refuge in the woods for two years, visited only by his intimate friend friar Leo. He waited for a divine illumination that would not come. Meanwhile, a rule was drafted that was marked by the influence of the Roman Curia and the Pope, turning the movement into a religious order: the Order of Friars Minor, with defined structure and purposes. Francis, with pain, humbly accepted it. But he clearly stated that he would no longer discuss it, but would continue giving examples of the primitive dream. Law triumphed over life, power confined charisma. But the spirit of Francis remained: the spirit of poverty, of simplicity, of universal brotherhood that inspires us to this day. Francis died amidst great personal frustration, but without losing his happiness. He died singing Provencal songs of love and the psalms.

     No, it’s not commanded of us to live in Assisian poverty. Few indeed are capable of such a life, or called to it. But whatever course we choose, if we are humble and sincere, we must be prepared to admit those occasions when we fail to uphold its strictures and norms, and to repent of them. Nothing else can make our example, as guided by the Christian ethos, attractive to others.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Denominations And Denunciations

All the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants.
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

     [Tom Lehrer, National Brotherhood Week]

     There’s an infinite amount to say about this, and a never-ending torrent of tempestuous rhetoric and recrimination to go with it. Those are the reasons I try to stay away from it. But every now and then the topic broaches my Rant Threshold.

     It’s been said, by me among others, that the greatest fanaticisms arise over unverifiable, unfalsifiable propositions. A lot of blood has been spilled over religious differences. It’s hardly necessary for a minor-league commentator to deplore it. But even in relatively civil and peaceful times, the matter should be watched.

     We haven’t had a major religious war in these United States, at least as far as I’m aware. There have been some ugly occasions – the “Mormon Wars” and the “Bloody Monday” riots of the 19th Century, for example — but they passed into history without much persistent effect. Contemporary verbal conflicts among members of Christian denominations are of greater long-term significance.

     There’s a lot of mudslinging among Christian denominations. It’s more ironic than I can capture in a net of words. Christ demanded very little of His followers, as I’ve written here many times. The heart of His message was love of God and benevolence toward those around you: the two Great Commandments enunciated in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 22. While I’m a Catholic for what I consider good reasons, I hold that anyone, regardless of denominational affiliation, who does his best to live by the Great Commandments, and to repent of his sins against them, will be happy with his next life.

     So why all the foofaurauw?

     Some of it derives from the desire to feel superior to others. Some might descend from a memory of having been abused by members of another sect. But regardless of the specifics, it indicates a shortfall of humility. It violates the second Great Commandment. And it is unworthy of a follower of Christ.

     It’s bewildering to think that it should be necessary to say those things. It troubles me that I feel such a need to say them. But the evidence of steadily rising inter-denominational hostility is too plain to ignore.

     My fellow Christians: Is it too much to ask that you do as your Savior would have you do? You can argue over points of doctrine and Scripture without becoming disagreeable, can’t you? Would it pain you that greatly to allow that you could be wrong?

     Any subject can be belabored unduly, and this one is no exception, so I’ll close here:

     Remember the words of the Redeemer.
     Live by the Great Commandments.
     Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
     And do have a nice day.

     May God bless and keep you all.

A Comparison I’d Like To See

     Alice Smith’s comparison that stimulated yesterday’s piece was a clever one. It illuminated a particularly absurd fallacy, which made it useful for an old crank who needed something to write about. But equally important comparisons are being made, silently and invisibly, all the time. It’s worth bringing a couple of them out into the light and torturing them until they talk.

     As it happens, I’ve been trying to lose weight these past few months. The diet gurus will tell you that the great enemy of any weight-loss attempt is hunger. The dieter must be ready to cope with it, for a sudden surge of it can derail his intentions. Ironically, that requires that he keep his house full of foods of all kinds.

     The comparison the dieter must never make is between eating something and eating nothing. When hunger strikes with full force, not eating is nearly impossible. Insisting on it transforms his effort from a campaign of self-improvement to an exercise in self-denial. Most of us are not capable of denying ourselves for a long stretch of time. So the comparison must be among edible alternatives: the pickle versus the cream pie.

     Now, that’s a fairly clear and straightforward sort of problem. In that regard it contrasts sharply with the next one, which arises biennially and bedevils well-meaning American voters at each occurrence: Which of these useless lying parasites should I prefer to his opponent?

     A lot has been thought and said about this problem. Nearly all of it has been misguided. For there are comparisons to be made that They Who Pour The Very Best Butter over the gears and cams of our society don’t want us even to think about, much less contemplate seriously.

     The comparison of real interest, of course, is this one:

Is either of these clowns preferable
To no one at all?

     Politicians and those who gain from their machinations are terrified of that comparison. It threatens their whole game. So they palm the card and pray that no one will notice that we’re playing with a deck of fifty-one.

     After a long enough period, the political class becomes blind to the possibility that We the Sorely Tried might dispense with them. They forget that there are alternatives of any kind. This is the way it’s done, this is the way it’s always been done, this is the way it must be done… The progression is so smooth as to be unconscious.

     In 2015, an alternative arose with compelling force. It blindsided the political elite so completely that they had no idea how to defend against it. And so, in the quadrennial elections of 2016, we got a real choice for the first time in many decades. The hubris of those who derided the candidacy of Donald Trump was made plain in endless video clips. No one has asked them since then whether they might have been a bit presumptuous.

     Many in the Right are disappointed with the Trump presidencies. It’s understandable, though most of the reasons lie outside the Administration. And the political Establishment is trying its best to capitalize on that disappointment. Establishmentarians are hoping for a return to their preferred state of undisturbed kleptocracy. If they play their hand well enough, they might just get it, and woe betide these United States thereafter.

     But that only raises the comparison I’d like to see Americans making in large numbers: the one that asks How about None of the Above is Acceptable?

     I don’t know of any electoral district, however small, that has None of the Above on its ballots for any office. But isn’t that the most important of all options? The one that asks “Can you do without this office and the powers it exercises for a couple of years?”

     The very idea terrifies the political professional, from the power-hungry bloviators on their stumps all the way down to the street-level campaigners who go door-to-door trawling for votes. Politics is their life, their love, and their living. They could never do without it. Therefore it becomes imperative that they persuade us that we cannot do without them.

     Tolkien captured the mindset:

     ‘[Sauron] supposes that we were all going to Minas Tirith; for that is what he would himself have done in our place. And according to his wisdom it would have been a heavy stroke against his power. Indeed he is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind.’

     Perhaps we who understand and love freedom can reorient the national conversation to include that unspeakable comparison. Suggest it to others dismayed by the status quo, instead of merely denouncing the latest elected thief or hawking the dubious virtues of some aspiring power-seeker. Both are likely to betray us. It would only be the umpteenth time.

Clever Comparisons Dept.

     I’ve just encountered this, from Alice Smith:

Calling capitalism the cause of poverty is like calling physics the cause of gravity.

— Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith) October 1, 2026

     Alice, as she’ll readily inform you, is a direct descendant from Adam Smith. Her comparison is exceptionally clever, but – as is frequently the case with clever things said by intelligent people – many people will fail to get it on their first reading. But its value is greater than just its stimulus to comprehension.

     As I’m in one of those phases at the moment, have a little (more) Heinlein:

     Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded-here and there, now and then-are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
     This is known as "bad luck."

     [Once again, from Time Enough For Love.]

     The human condition is something everyone thinks he understands. Nearly everyone is wrong. While I dislike most of his assertions, Thomas Hobbes got this one right:

     The life of man in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. [From Leviathan]

     Subsistence-level existence, a.k.a. “poverty,” is what predominates in the savage “state of nature” that precedes the development of key ideas:

• Private property;
• Free, uncoerced exchange;
• The “social contract.”

     Now, some of us have accepted those ideas and participate in societies that honor them. Call us the West, or the First World, for convenience. Is the understanding of them uniform among us? Not quite. But it prevails sufficiently in America and Europe to have supported economic development of a high order.

     For a long time, there have been people who hate those ideas. They have their reasons, highest of all the acquisition of power and wealth at our expense. So they seek to defame them. One of their gurus, a certain Karl Marx, did so by coining a term that he hoped would displace the understanding of economic freedom.

     The term is capitalism.

     Marx’s effort was spectacularly successful. The use of capitalism as a shorthand for economic freedom became widespread swiftly after his book Capital was published. No doubt he was pleased, for the term capitalist acquired unpleasant connotations along with it. “Social crusaders” slandered and vilified “capitalists” for having produced poverty: a condition that predated them by eons. I’m sure you’ve seen some of the caricatures.

     Economic freedom was the human advance that made the gradual elimination of poverty possible. Its mechanisms – specialization and the division of labor; the development of money; the codification of property rights; the emergence of banking, investment systems, and the concept of group ownership of an enterprise – brought steadily increasing prosperity to millions of people. Yet most of them lacked any understanding of the dynamics that made economic freedom work. That made them easy to deceive.

     The treatment of capitalism and capitalist as pejoratives was instrumental in pulling off one of the greatest frauds in written history: the representation that the “capitalist,” the creator of wealth where none had previously existed, was the reason that some people are poor. As an illustration of the power of words, this one has few equals.

     It’s still going on today, of course. You can probably hear it near you. But let’s return to Alice Smith’s clever analogy:

     Calling capitalism the cause of poverty is like calling physics the cause [of] gravity.

     It takes a wee bit of thought, though not much, to see what that means. Physics, the study of the patterns that run through the natural world, didn’t create or modify the natural world. It merely seeks to understand natural phenomena, and to propose “laws” that would assist others in understanding them. No one with three functioning brain cells would claim that before physics and physicists, there was no force that attracted one mass to another – what we term gravity.

     But those hostile to freedom have cleverly exploited envy, ignorance, and the desire of good men for social improvement to make it seem that some have little because some – the most enterprising and productive members of our species – have much. And they’ve done it largely through the manipulation of our language, especially Marx’s key coinage capitalism.

     Need I say more?

     A man that should call everything by its right name would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy. – Sir George Savile

Filters Old And New

     One of the perennial questions about the differences in economic and military status among the nations of the world is Why is the United States so far ahead of everyone else? Asking frequently evokes a lot of contention about “American exceptionalism.” While Americans are exceptional in certain ways, it constitutes a partial answer at best.

     If we exclude the U.S. and look exclusively at all the other countries, there remain differences to be considered. Europe and Japan are considerably better off economically than the rest of the world. Russia is “getting there,” as is South America. Asia and Africa bring up the rear. Yet the differences among them are less dramatic than the difference between America and the “second-place finishers” of Europe.

     The influence most frequently invoked is that of the oceans. For a long time, to elect to migrate to the U.S. from anywhere else was difficult and hazardous. That’s no longer the case, though it is still expensive. In that regard, migration constituted a filter that favored the more courageous and enterprising. But surely, with nearly a century of reasonably convenient air and sea travel behind us, you’d think that filter would have weakened.

     Maybe not. While America is generous toward newcomers, uprooting oneself to find a new home among strangers is never an easy decision. There remain matters of law, language, and customs, economic requirements, and a willingness to adapt to be faced. So the filter still operates, albeit at reduced strength.

     As usual, the late Robert A. Heinlein had an opinion to express:

     "It's the bell curve again," I said to Ishtar. "If – as Lazarus thinks, and statistics back him up – every migration comes primarily from the right-hand end of the normal-incidence curve of human ability, then this acts as a sorting device whereby the new planet will show a bell curve with a much higher intelligence norm than the population it came from...and the old planet will average almost imperceptibly stupider."
     "Imperceptible except for one thing!" Lazarus objected.
     "That tiny fraction that hardly shows statistically is the brain. I recall a country that lost a key war by chasing out a mere half dozen geniuses. Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion – in the long run these are the only people who count and they are the very ones who migrate when it is physically possible to do so."

     [From Time Enough For Love.]

     If Heinlein was correct, and there’s evidence to suggest that he was, then the reduction of migration difficulties from impossible to risky “chops the head off” an old society. The older a society grows, the more rigid it becomes. There’s less room in which to innovate, to take risks, and to introduce alternatives to existing ways. That incentivizes the pinnacle of its population to pull stakes… but then, the question of where to go arises. Other variations among the nations rise to the top of the list.

     I could produce a long disquisition on this subject, but really, it reduces to a single question: Where will what I want to do be least hampered?

     That question is rarely voiced aloud, yet the answer appears to be the decisive factor in the would-be migrant’s choice of destinations.

     The realization brings many implications. American society is now 250 years old, and has been growing more rigid all the while. Yet it remains less restrictive, in nearly every way, than the societies that provide most of our (legal) immigrants. Those other societies have rigidified even further than the U.S. Innovators in Europe face great legal and social obstacles. Our own disincentives to creativity and entrepreneurship remain considerably weaker.

     There’s information there for policy makers throughout the First World. It will be ignored, of course; they who deem themselves fit to rule the rest of us have priorities other than how to keep their nations healthy and growing. Yet it underscores the potential of space travel to unsettle the whole world.

     Elon Musk’s SpaceX has given us hope that Mankind may yet be able to spread beyond its ancestral home. There’s no question that many problems remain to be solved. The difficulties involved in migrating off-Earth will be stiff for decades to come. But the possibility beckons.

     We who will remain behind will miss those who will rise to the occasion.