Reflections From a Murky Pond

That we as members of a society must judge the actions of others is a fact. While there is no need – beyond the pragmatic or utilitarian level – to “pass judgment” upon a person or his actions, we must judge the import of those actions and frame them in the context of their intent and within the framework of the other person’s goals in order to predict future behaviors and their possible effect upon us.

The question arise though – how do we judge another’s intent and goals? What scales do you use to derive our measurements? Do we weigh the actions of others on our own scales of malice, or do we weigh them on what we can perceive of their scales of malice?

For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of this malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it.

— Gandalf
J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 203

It a common thought that we judge others by own desires and from solely within our own framework of goals and perceptions – or at least it’s a common rebuttal in many arguments. Somehow I doubt this assertion is anywhere near universal in its accuracy.

I think it is important for people to determine by which and whose scales they judge the actions and malice of others though.

Our Scales:

If we are judging the actions of others based upon what we would do in a similar circumstance, then our judgment is bound to be very subjective. It also would, at that point, say as much or more about ourselves as it does about the object of our judgment.

It would also be a flawed basis for judgment in many cases. People are not all the same and – beyond the primal needs – do not necessarily have similar motivations. By judging others only by own goals we leave ourselves open to being outmaneuvered by our enemies, as the quoted passage above asserts.

Still, it’s a consistent framework for judgment and one that can be rapidly brought to bear on a situation. Therefor it is not wholly lacking in merit – if one accepts its limitations and plans accordingly.

Their Scales:

If we are judging the actions others based upon their own goals and capabilities, then our judgment is not going to be subjective in the same manner as if we judged based on what we would do in the same or similar circumstances. The subjectivity would be more a case of targeting the assessment to the situation and individuals or groups involved.

It would also be a basis of judgment that has to be predicated on either prior knowledge of the individuals or groups involved or a high degree of empathy. Lacking a sufficient amount of either would render judgment based upon their intent, goals, capabilities flawed to the point of uselessness.

Still, it has the capacity for greater accuracy than basing one’s judgment on ones’ own intent, goals, capabilities. Therefor it is not wholly lacking in merit – if one accepts its limitations and plans accordingly.

It is certainly beyond me to determine which framework of judgment is better in the long run; I’m not even sure if either one is better than the other in an overall manner. Both scales of malice, internal and external, have the strengths and weaknesses.

It is not beyond my capabilities though to conclude that it is best to know, or at least consider, by which one – or at what level of combination – one is assessing the ramifications and intent of others’ actions in any given situation.

Can You Picture This? (Case #1)

In 2010 or 2011 Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao “requests” that President Obama step down in order to avoid China selling off its massive share of United States Treasury bonds and other debt.  Stating concerns over US inflation and the risks it poses to China’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, China’s leadership demands that President Obama and many members of the US government be replaced and that the US has 60 days to develop a restructuring plan that meets Premier Wen Jiabao and his Ministers’ approval.

It’d be hypocrisy for the Liberals to complain about this – unless they’re willing to admit that they hold the government as being more sacrosanct than the People.

It would be fair, right? It’d all be proper and appropriate, wouldn’t it? After all the US went to the Chinese government looking for enough money to pay its bills rights? As our largest creditor, China has the right to look after its investments, doesn’t it?

~*~

Can You Picture This? (Case #2)

In 2010 or 2011 Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and his ministers declare the United States a “nonviable” country, stating that no restructuring of the US as a standalone nation will provide the income necessary for America to continue. Premier Wen Jiabao mandates that the US has 30 days to partner with Canada and  Mexico to create a North American Union. China further dictates that neither Canada nor Mexico can own more of the United States than China until such time as the US pays off its debt to China. At that time Canada and Mexico may acquire a combined 49% share of the US.

Again, it’d be hypocrisy for the Liberals to complain about this – unless they’re willing to admit that they hold the government as being more sacrosanct than the People.

It would be fair, right? It’d all be proper and appropriate, wouldn’t it? China couldn’t really be expected to just keep throwing money at the US, could it? After all, the combination of the three countries has been talked about for years in some quarters. China would just be moving the process along. After China’s “bail-out” of the United States, they must have the right to provide regulation and oversight for America.

~*~

Now the above are just two dark fantasies about what could – with the right sort of international events – happen over the next couple of years; I find it highly doubtful that China would attempt so overt of an action. They are far more likely to use the fact that the US is massively beholden to them to influence our international trade and foreign policies.

The true point of those Distopian fantasies was to point out the logical flaws in the argument so often put forth by the Liberals that, since US companies – and States – have needed, or in some cases been forced to accept – federal funds, the federal government has the “right” to determine how those companies – or States – are operated and by whom.

From a logical, if not emotional, standpoint there’s not a great deal of difference between a government and a corporation, especially when one takes into the “trade” in national deficits through Treasury Bills and similar financial vehicles. That being the case, the Liberals’ endorsement of the government’s actions in regards to AIG, GM and others could be seen as tacit approval of similar actions by our government’s creditors…

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has, as must be expected from his sort, championed legislation in the US House of Representatives that dramatically increases the government’s control over those firms in what used to be until recently the private sector which have received any federal financial assistance under any of the various bail-out programs of recent months.

It’s called the Pay for Performance Act of 2009 and it’s one the most vile, pernicious, draconian, and un-American pieces legislation that our nation has been unfortunate enough to experience.

Barney Frank and the Liberals in the House Financial Services Committee, angered over the dwindling – shockingly, even President Obama backed away from it – support for the confiscatory tax bill on the AIG executives who received bonuses, drafted and passed the Pay for Performance Act of 2009 which is, in many fundamental ways, even more draconian, invasive, and punitive that the original AIG bill.

From the Washington Examiner:

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is “unreasonable” or “excessive.” And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate “the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates.”

— Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent

This abomination was first introduced by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl) and supported by Rep. Jim Himes (D-CN). Formally known as the Grayson-Himes Pay for Performance Act of 2009, it will be voted on by Congress in this week. Given the makeup of the House, it will most likely pass – as will all such bills that either increase government control of the private sector or support the class warfare efforts of the Liberals.

You can read the full text of the bill (H.R. 1664) here.

So now the Liberals want to control all the compensation packages – and effectively all the terms of employment – for any financial firm that has received or will receive funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) or the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The Liberals will deny the charge that the government will control the terms of employment, but you can’t create performance-based standards without including the low end of the spectrum.

I think that America can reasonably expect that any of the skilled workers and executives at these firms will be rethinking their careers at this point. With the government controlling their wages and even their continued employment, I think they will leave the troubled firms as quickly as possible. This will likely lead to those firms’ final collapse, which will allow the government to seize them as was done during the Great Depression. Just don’t expect them to be returned to the private sector later this time.

On the bright side – this sort legislation will have the positive effect of causing any corporation to twice or more about accepting one iota of financial “assistance” from the government in the future. Additionally, healthy firms – those not in line for the federal dole – will be able recruit the best and the brightest – since they’ll still be allowed to offer competitive wages and benefits – from those companies mired in the federal assistance trap and eventually drive them out of business.