Order Form - The Charles Close Society: Fill & Download for Free

First you have to get the real rift right… ready?Forget labels.The divide is between two different mindsets… outlooks… dispositions. One says, “Left to our own devices, we will surely go astray.” The other claims, “Left to our own devices, we shall surely prosper.” Both feel the weight of history is on their side.In more detail:Left to our own devices, we will surely prosper owing to collaboration, enterprise, innovation, generosity and community. History clearly demonstrates this. It is all but impossible to predict who among us has the genius, the boldness, the perseverance and other talents to provide mankind with the next great boon, and so all should be empowered to act according to their own lights in order to produce a more prosperous and empowered society.Left to our own devices, we will surely go astray owing to greed, bigotry, ignorance, propensity to violence, "false consciousness" and the other predispositions that plague us. History clearly shows this. It is all but impossible to predict what will ignite conflict, depression, hostile acts or other threats to social well-being. Accordingly, we must turn to those who have demonstrated a higher consciousness to lead us to a better place.If you want labels, Karl Popper labeled “Prosper” the open society in his influential 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies. “Astray” was labeled closed society. Virginia Postrel in her 1999 The Future and Its Enemies labeled “Prosper” dynamism, marked by constant change, creativity and exploration in the pursuit of progress, and “Astray” stasism, where progress is controlled by careful and cautious planning.In psychology, the terms are the dispositions of optimism and pessimism. A semi-technical differentiation is that optimists explain “good things” as being internal (largely a result of your own efforts), stable (dependable) and global (generally reliable, as opposed to situational). And those same attributes, pessimists assign to “bad things.” Research, including twin studies, finds the two dispositions 25 percent heritable, a significant amount, meaning, extraordinary events aside, it’s likely you have a similar outlook to your parents.The remaining 75 percent is thought environmental, with the prime contributors being pleasure and pain. With just a little concentration, it is easy to identify optimism and pessimism in speech, writing or anytime you have a conversation with someone. In fact, you can find lists of writers, philosophers, literary characters and others described according to optimism and pessimism.The United States was birthed in optimistic hope for an improving future, born at the culmination of enlightenment optimism and Kantian enthusiasm for the betterment of life at a time we now look back at as the dawn of the late modern era. This resulted in our republican form of government that is exceedingly open, dynamist and optimistic.It was the generation born from 1845 to 1865 (with most of the following generation buying in) that turned this on its head. Why is easy to understand. Too young to fight the Civil War, they helplessly stood witness to the dramatic toll it took and its savage carnage. Did they blame this on slavery or economics? No, they blamed it directly on our optimism, our individualism, our freedom. They wished to redeem the nation and make certain no such disaster would ever again befall us.Coincidentally, Germany at the time this generation was reaching adulthood was the only country with universities offering the doctorate of philosophy degree. The Americans who studied there by the hundreds were largely sons of ministers, often Puritan/Congregationalist. They tended to study the new disciplines of political economy and sociology—the very techniques needed for correcting the flaws of society and redeeming and reforming it.While in Germany, they got a close-up view of Bismarckian social democracy, the epitome of closed society and stasism. The main thing they noticed was that men just like them ran the government in an administrative state beyond the reach of any voters and outranking even the Reichstag (the legislature). This would be the way to redeem America and rid us of our silly notions of freedom and individualism that, in their mind, had propelled us directly to war.The result was a radical change in American politics and the Progressive Era that dawned in the 1870s and flourished in the 1890s until the end of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency in 1921. It was driven by men like Wilson (b. 1856), Teddy Roosevelt (b. 1858), Lester Frank Ward (b. 1841), Richard T. Ely (b. 1854), Charles Evans Hughes (b.1862), Jane Addams (b. 1860), John Dewey (b. 1859) Thorstein Veblen (b. 1857), William James (b. 1842) and many others, all with a conviction that if we did not clamp down on things, relying on their control, we would suffer again.This outlook was so predominant for twenty years on each side of 1900 that it dominated both political parties with only subtle differences between them. All felt that Amendment XIV making all races citizens with equal rights, passed under the influence of the post-war highly liberal (true sense) Radical Republicans, would result only in race mongrelization and “deplorables” wishing to share white society and white workplaces. They explicitly wanted an Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation. They began passing anti-immigration laws, anti-miscegenation laws, compulsory sterilization of mental and criminal inferiors, fighting Indian Wars or attempting to socialize native Americans into proper Victorian white Christians, borrowed the Prussian school system (which we still retain) in order to indoctrinate immigrants, and many other anti-liberal initiatives, which in polls, were typically opposed by only single digits of voters.They also began changing laws to permit much more majoritarian-rule democracy (they were an overwhelming majority after all), cranking out fantastical reinterpretations of our Constitution, creating one executive agency after another with themselves as the resident (unelected) experts, passing an amendment to enable income taxation (as required by the expert-laden and redistributive Bismarckian state)—basically a thorough stamping out of the liberalism that brought us, in their minds, to such ruin.And there we’ve sat for a century and a half. During that time, we’ve elected far more stasist presidents than dynamist (Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Trump). The election of John F. Kennedy, the only true liberal ever elected president from the Democratic Party, at a time of rising optimism, was proof that we can surmount pessimism. Only, he was tragically assassinated, affirming the need to rely on pessimism.The Republican dynamist presidents tend to evoke a special ire in the pessimist stasists, a measure of how stark the difference between the outlooks. They see a Donald Trump portraying a great future and ginning up a strong economy, and it’s “Oh no, here we go heading to disaster again.” They do not want the robust citizens we are supposed to have; they want meek subjects. They do not care for the rights we are supposed to enjoy; they want entitlements that bind the people to the state. They want us to pay for the sin of productivity and profit by forfeiting enough of the proceeds not to threaten their grip on things, because the very same dynamic future that turns us optimists only causes panic attacks for them.How do you solve this? How do you breech the difference? The differences are dispositional, part of our make up—just who we each are. The only thing I can think of is keep electing presidents like Donald Trump and pray like crazy nothing goes disastrously wrong ever. If we can, spring-boarding off Trump, enjoy a Liberal Era for three or four presidents to rival the earlier Progressive Era and use it to dismantle the progressive “Blue Model” designed to gum things up and keep progressives in positions of influence and power, we’ll at least make it quite difficult for them exert their fears over us any longer.Plus, we could start enforcing oaths of political office, to protect and defend our Constitution, an exceedingly optimistic and dynamist document.

When will people wake up to the fact we are chartered to be a socialist nation?Our Constitution makes us citizens, not subjects, meaning we are free to go about our business in the private and civil sectors addressing any need we perceive. In the private sector, we can address people’s need for better rain wear, for longer-lasting batteries, for portable patio pizza ovens… you name it.But in civil society, we can address anything that bedevils us… start our own schools, start our own shelters, start lonely-hearts societies, end the scourge of [Fill in the Blank], start hospices, make micro loans to people who are struggling… even start your own new religion. You’re a goddamn American. You can do it! And the only thing that can stop you is your own loss of momentum.Or… that’s how it was intended. Then we got “socialists” of a different stripe a century and a half ago. They were not interested in helping others. They were interested in aggregating power to themselves. In fact, they harbored quite a lot of antipathy to others. Their social programs included forced sterilization, birth control, prohibition of mixed marriages, and many other steps to keep these “deplorables” in their place.What they wanted more than socialism was statism… POWER. And they used that power to make sure you could not set up to feed the homeless without a license. You could not raise money from donors without jumping through bureaucratic hoops. And, should you fail to make the “powers that be” look good, heaven help you. If Americans were running around actually solving problems on their own, their claim to more political power would go unheard.Read your Alexis de Tocqueville sometime (Democracy in America). The aid societies, the benevolent and protective societies, the “aid to mothers” organizations, the food banks, the free medical care… you name it, it existed. Pay attention: There. Is. No. Truer. Socialism! Society flexing its muscles to take care of its own is the pure form of socialism.Why are we trained that government has to do it? That is not socialism, that is statism. That is not helping those in need, that is helping politicians.What is stopping you? Don’t know how? Sign up today at Watson - Protect Your Courage. What kind of fartknocker wails about problems and doesn’t get off his duff and do something about it?… the kind who listens to politicians. The kind who has zero experience helping others. What’s stopping you? You can raise money. You can fill out the forms. You can recruit volunteers.And the best part of the deal is that private efforts have a payoff in two ways that government efforts do not. One, private efforts contribute to the economy. Not-for-profits make a profit, just one that must be socialized, that must go entirely to the benefit of the intended recipients. Government programs consume revenue.Two, purely civilian programs create a class of people adept at solving problems. They become our new political class—people with a proven track record helping others—while we rid ourselves of those who nurse problems in order to keep their power growing. Solving problems close to the scene, within the community if possible, is the way to go. Got a tornado… we’re there. Got a hurricane… we’re there. Got a drought… we’re there. Got contagion… we’re there. Such programs make society strong, resilient, creative.There is literally zero impediment to making the USA a fully socialist society. So get going.

I’m going to answer this question literally.See this dude?His name’s John Locke.Born 1632, died 1704. English physician and political theorist. One of the most prominent thinkers of the Enlightenment. Considered “the founder of liberalism.”America’s Founding Fathers, people like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, cribbed heavily from Locke’s work when they were building the moral and philosophical basis for the United States of America and writing the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers and the Constitution and whatnot. And so did the 1st United States Congress when they were ratifying the Bill of Rights.Locke wrote extensively on the topics of natural rights, the balance of power, and the origin and purpose of government. His liberal ideas were used as building blocks by America’s Founding Fathers to craft their new nation—the freest, purest, and most just republic the world had ever seen.How did Locke come into these revolutionary ideas?He built upon the work of philosophers who had gone before him, of course. Hobbes and Machiavelli and the like.But in addition, some interesting things happened during Locke’s lifetime.One of these was the English Civil War (1642–1651).This was a war between the king of England (Charles I) and his royalist supporters (“Cavaliers”) vs. the English Parliament and their supporters (“Roundheads”). Charlie wasn’t a very good king, you see, and Parliament became unhappy with his repeated abuses of his royal powers.Back in those days, Parliament didn’t really have the powers it has now. It was basically a cabinet the king convened at his sole discretion. But it did have the power to levy taxes, which came in handy for a total spendthrift like Charles I.But anyway, Charlie got to feeling a bit too free and easy for Parliament’s liking. He went and married a French (and Roman Catholic) princess named Henrietta Maria in 1625. Then Charlie decided to send an expeditionary force to France to relieve the French Huguenots besieged at La Rochelle in 1627. Parliament began to breathe easy—despite marrying a Catholic, the king was showing support for the Protestant Huguenots. Then Charlie went and ruined everything by giving command of the expedition to the hugely unpopular Duke of Buckingham. The expedition was a complete shambles. Parliament opened impeachment procedures against Buckingham. King Charles responded by dissolving Parliament—which was the king’s prerogative at the time.But now Charlie was in a bind—Parliament was the only way he could raise taxes to support his extravagant lifestyle. So he went ahead and convened a new Parliament. This new bunch (which included Oliver Cromwell) drew up a Petition of Right, which was basically a list of rights the king was forbidden from infringing upon.Sound familiar, my fellow Americans?Parliament submitted the Petition of Right for Chuckie’s approval. Chuckie approved it, but only so Parliament would give him his royal subsidy. Then he dissolved Parliament.Chaz avoided calling a Parliament for the next eleven years. He practically bent over backward to make sure he didn’t have to reconvene it, in fact. He went so far as to make peace with France and Spain so he wouldn’t have an expensive war on his hands. He also resorted to some fairly tricky means to raise money for himself. He started fining people who failed to show up at his coronation and receive a knighthood. “Ship money” was a tax traditionally levied against English citizens in coastal districts, and which funded the Royal Navy’s anti-piracy efforts. Chuck started charging inland English counties for anti-piracy and anti-privateering measures. Naturally, this illegal and arbitrary tax made a lot of people angry, and some of them refused to pay it.Once again, my fellow Americans—doesn’t this sound familiar?There was also some religious crap that went down, as usual, but neither you nor I care about that.For these and various other reasons, those eleven Parliament-less years were called “the personal rule of Charles I” or more bluntly, the “Eleven Years’ Tyranny.”An emergency in Scotland caused Charles to reconvene Parliament in 1640. A majority of this new body decided to use Charles I’s desperate need for money against him. They pressured him to redress Parliament’s grievances against him and to abandon the war in Scotland. Charles, outraged, again dissolved Parliament. It had lasted only a few weeks. It came to be known as “the Short Parliament.”Without Parliament’s approval, Charles I attacked Scotland. He suffered an embarrassing defeat. The Scots turned right around and invaded England, eventually occupying almost the entire northern region. Charles was soon forced to pay the Scots £850 a day to keep them from advancing further.Well, this put ol’ Chuckie back in desperate financial straits, so he had no choice but to reconvene Parliament. As you may imagine, this new Parliament—the Long Parliament, as it came to be known—was even more hostile to him than the Short Parliament had been. And this time, they really had him over a barrel. They forced the king to agree to all kinds of demands. A raft of new laws was passed. Henceforth, Parliament would convene at least once every three years—whether or not the king had summoned them. The king could no longer impose taxes without Parliament’s express consent. Parliament could now review and censure the conduct of the king’s ministers. Oh, and here’s the kicker: the king could no longer dissolve Parliament without its consent, even after the three years were up.My fellow Americans, does this sound familiar yet?(I’ll give you a hint: the phrase “checks and balances” should be running through your head right about now.)Anyway, tensions between Charles I and Parliament eventually reached their breaking point. Charles resented all the concessions he’d been forced to make to Parliament, and the Long Parliament suspected Charles of wanting to shut Parliament down and rule by military force. (They were also worried that he wanted to reintroduce Catholicism—okay, more like episcopalian Anglicanism, but close enough—to England.)So the English Civil War broke out.The outcome was pretty interesting. The Parliamentarians won. King Charles was put on trial and executed and his son Charles II exiled. England ceased to be a monarchy and became the Commonwealth of England, and then the Protectorate (ruled over by Cromwell as “Lord Protector”—essentially a military dictator). Then, finally, the monarchy was restored in 1660 when Charles II returned from exile. But it was restored only with Parliament’s consent. Constitutionally, a new day had dawned for England. Monarchs could only rule if Parliament gave ’em the green light. Britain was now on course to become the constitutional monarchy it is today.The English Civil War, its causes, and its outcome were all extremely interesting to John Locke, that gaunt and mournful-looking fellow whose image adorns the top of this increasingly long-winded Quora answer.Locke’s most influential work, perhaps, was his First and Second Treatise of Civil Government. The treatises were written in 1689, in defense of the Glorious Revolution the year prior, during which Mary II and her Dutch husband William of Orange deposed Mary’s father King James II and VII of England, Scotland, and Ireland (that’s, uh, just one guy, by the way—yeah, I know it’s confusing). William and Mary then turned right around and accepted Parliament’s invitation to become joint sovereigns of England and gave their royal assent to the English Bill of Rights, which finally established the authority of Parliament over the Crown.(If you’ve ever wondered why Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t actually rule the United Kingdom, and Parliament and the prime minister are the ones who make all the important decisions, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution are the reasons.)Contained within the English Bill of Rights were a couple of things that Americans might find hauntingly familiar—the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, the banning of taxation without Parliament’s assent (taxation without representation, in other words), and the right of Protestants to keep and bear arms for their defense.You’re beginning to see where I’m going with this, aren’t you?In his defense of the Glorious Revolution, John Locke philosophized that men and women, back in the savage days, had the anarchistic freedom to pursue their own interests, which resulted in violent and brutal warfare. To put a stop to this chaos and protect people’s inalienable rights, governments were established to keep the peace. This peace was maintained by laws. This principle is something Locke referred to as the “social compact”—governments are established by mutual agreement of individuals for the purposes of protection and the security of their individual liberty.The so-called first principle of the social compact is this: since governments are instituted by the people, governments necessarily derive their power from the consent of the governed. Since the government’s purpose is to protect people’s inalienable rights, a government has no power beyond what’s necessary to protect those rights. A just government is, therefore, a limited government.Locke argued that the definition of liberty is freedom from restraint or violence by other people, and this cannot be accomplished without laws. Anarchy repulsed him. But tyranny repulsed him even more. A just government, in Locke’s view, was one with checks and balances—where the legislative branch of government had the power to check the executive, and the people were armed and ready to defend themselves against tyranny from either the legislative or executive branches. Or both.I’m currently reading a book called The Philosopher’s Handbook (edited by Stanley Rosen). In his introduction to Part One (Social and Political Philosophy), Paul Rahe wrote something about Locke that I found rather interesting. (Emphasis mine.)Locke was perfectly prepared to acknowledge the horrors of anarchy, but he doubted very much that they so exceeded those of tyranny that human beings could be persuaded to give up the right to organized self-defense. A well-ordered government would include a monarchical executive armed with a prerogative enabling him to execute the laws, defend the realm, and respond to emergencies; it would include a representative assembly empowered to lay taxes, make laws, and examine the conduct of the executive's ministers. But it would rest ultimately on an enlightened citizenry prepared, in the face of executive and legislative abuse, to take up arms in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property.MY FELLOW AMERICANS, DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR YET?Like I said, America’s Founding Fathers stole a hell of a lot of Locke’s ideas. They used Locke’s principles of the social compact, consent of the governed, and the right to keep and bear arms to form a near-perfect union—to shape (and philosophically defend) the fledgling United States of America. The Declaration of Independence says “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” It also says that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”And the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”That’s not something the 1st United States Congress pulled out of thin air. It comes straight from Locke.And at long last, ladies and gentlemen—that is why America “allows the general public to keep guns.” Because the right to keep and bear arms was seen as being necessary to the security of the free state envisioned by John Locke, and early American statesmen, heavily influenced by Locke’s writings and philosophy, saw fit to enshrine the inalienable right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.QED.Sources:Social Compact TheoryJohn Locke and the founding fathers