Governmant and the Ruling Class

Much is made of the differences in the various forms of government. Some are called more enlightened or fair and others are considered more admirable. It is my opinion that the form of government is chosen/maintained by those with a will to power to garner the most support. Regardless of the form of government, the ruling class constantly shifts between a legitimate aristocracy (those that hold true to the same laws and cultural norms as the rest of their society) and a plutocracy (those that act on whimsey without regard to their society). Revolutions are carried out in order to rearrange the standing of a group of households. It should be kept in mind that revolutions can be peaceful. As well they can be undertaken under false pretenses in order to gain time to entrench before implementing changes society would not accept otherwise.

I do not hold to the idea that old families of wealth are somehow better. Rather, I acknowledge that their wealth and family connections allow them far greater social influence. I also acknowledge that the majority of society gives little attention to the workings of government and as a consequence are greatly affected by propaganda. One example of this propaganda would be communism's promise of a classless society vs the reality of the power held by members of the central committee over the governed

Old households were once held in high regard by their societies and were encouraged to stand as exemplars. I hold that such encouragement made for better governance. Whereas these days they are ignored or demonized which has them stepping away from an active role in society. This allows the plutocracy free reign to our detriment.

A democracy which does not take account of any kind of superiority, or even which does not take into account all kinds, can not escape continual and wretched agitation It will consume itself and surely fall a victim to chance and transient despotisms, with intervals of anarchy - Henri Baudrillart, Aristocracy - Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States

Musings on US Education

There have been a number of articles on the drive to get all children into college at the expense of the trades over the past few years. This harms both the individual and society in general.

The harm to society can be mitigated through outsourcing and automation but these are problematic as well. Automation requires sufficient volume of goods sold to cover the cost of maintaining the equipment as well as its debt/lease. If the volume can not be maintained, the manufacturer must raise the price which brings the demand curve into play. Outsourcing only pushes a society's problem off for a period of time. What is forgotten is that labor is cheap in these areas because they are poor at present. With continued investment they will no longer be poor and labor will become more expensive. One could think this as altruistic but when it comes at the expense of your own society it is nothing more than selfishness.

The harm to the individual is much more intense. A young child will not understand why they are falling behind their peers. The child will continue to struggle or may simply quit and think themselves a failure. The tragedy here is that the child may have so little confidence that they will not put forth any effort into STEM instruction/careers. The problem is that not everyone learns the same way. Some will not grasp the topic unless it is presented in an applied manner and others will require a basic/theoretical approach. Along with that base method students have different learning styles. When wood/metal/auto shop classes were removed from the basic curriculum a useful avenue of applied learning was removed which left many directionless. Happily some of those poor souls join the military and once in that crucible of applied learning find success.

What of those who require an applied learning method that do not join the military? Some stumble into the training they need. Where they determine the need for a specific skill and take a vocational class. At which point they learn that they are not failures. With their confidence restored they seek out the applied types of education that will move them towards their goals.

What of those who have no luck at all in picking up skills that lead to gainful employment? I'm not referring to wastrels, only those who assume they are failures because they never experienced an applied educational environment. Now, much like the 70s, it appears that welfare programs are the chosen medicine. The age old problem with welfare is that it breeds dependence and soon you will have generations of families that are fully dependent on the state. With the more recent advent of open borders into the US and Europe, welfare immigration comes into play. Welfare creates a downward spiral of resentment between the individual and society that in the extreme will lead to revolution (see Soviets, NAZIs, etc). Signs of this can be seen in France's immigrant community.

It is my opinion that the widespread elimination of shop classes was driven by a desire to increase the success rate of liberal arts degrees without regard to applied learning. What may seem like menial job training to those who have a basic/theoretical approach to life, is something altogether different to someone with an applied approach. The applied individual will make connections from what they learn in shop class to what they learn in their more basic/theoretical classes. Connections that will serve as a Rosetta Stone to all basic/theoretical material. Artistic individuals of both approaches may find success as well as it could open the door to mediums that they would otherwise be ignorant.