Language and War

    In this blog, I will discuss the tremendous relationship between language and war and how not having a communicational language can spell the difference between victory or defeat.

Imagine, for a moment, that one is a diplomatic envoy sent to the negotiations for a possible peace treaty, but with one problem.  One has had no exposure to the enemy's language.  When one speaks, the foreign party seems very confused.  And, when they speak, it just sounds like strung together noise.  Aside to the possibility of there being a translator brought along, there is no hope for a treaty being created and understood.

Language is so important in war.  It is important in coordinating the actions of the dominantly understood side.  It is important in rallying the minority language participants.  And, if one ever finds oneself deep in enemy territory, or assigned the task of translating an opponent's progress, it is crucial to have a grasp of their language or languages.

Indeed, at times a language barrier can be the only obstacle between a successful alliance and an uncertain misunderstanding.  History is full of examples of an advancing army encountering a tribal force that speaks an unknown language.  This potential military ally may want to join one's side.  But, without simple communication, the opportunity is lost.

I believe that the interconnections between language and war are vast.  And, if one digs into History, there are volumes that could be written on the relationship.  In Europe there have been so many wars that students are sometimes encouraged to learn: 3, 4, or 5 different languages due to the geographic situation there.  I am not suggesting that America should break from a usual 1 foreign language tradition in its isolated geography.  But, I do view the present, common curriculum as perhaps a wise way to go partly because of the very real potential for war.

Paul Wharton

Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Non-Voters, Not Illegals

    Having put in a lot of time wrestling with the issue of "illegal" immigration, and seeing what kind of a practical nightmare it has become, I think I am compelled to post in my blog the solution which I have recently discovered.

I will begin with what now is, and then, analyze the problems that did exist in what has been:

An individual who is not a Citizen who comes into America from a foreign land, or by sea, is called a "Non-Voter".  A Non-Voter is not considered an "Illegal", as the word has been tossed around so loosely in the past.  While a Non-Voter is free to travel where one wants and offer to work where one wants, the Non-Voter status means that the individual can never vote in America for a person running for a political office or a proposed law on any ballot.

There are a few obligations that newly arrived Non-Voters have.  A Non-Voter must be cleared of the three possible scenarios that can reject one's domestic American status:

(1) A Non-Voter cannot be a criminal on the run for a significant offense.

(2) A Non-Voter cannot be a carrier of a contagious, significant disease.

(3) A Non-Voter cannot be a spy planning or having carried out serious espionage.

The only other major obligation is that a Non-Voter must register for, and soon receive, a Federal State ID (i.e., an American identification).  This is necessary because government officials, such as police or polling officials, have to know who a Non-Voter is and where that Non-Voter is residing.

Now, let's cross-apply the new "Non-Voter" immigration philosophy with the "Illegal" philosophy of the past:

Under the "Illegal" model, there are tens of millions of Illegal aliens in America.  It has been said that no one knows exactly how many.  I am just going to estimate it at 30 million.  The "Illegal" school of thought says that America does not have to send back 100% for the rest of the "Illegals" to get the message.  But, even if that would have the practical effect, consider what sending back just 3 million individuals would cost. It is not practical.

The focus is on what is best for America.  And factoring in the boost to the U.S. economy--especially low-cost labor related goods--a massive number of working Non-Voters is a great thing.  But, look also at the effect on the soon not to be denied neighbors.  No longer does one have to live in anxiety of a midnight raid, or the next knock at the door.  No longer is one lured into the only ways to make a little money, such as prostitution or the drug trade.

If one gives the argument that health care, government school, public housing, etc... is too expensive, I just respond that these things do not exist in government--neither for Non-Voters, nor Citizens.

And then there is the denied "voter status".  Are these poor Non-Voters soon to be aching and wallowing in sorrow at their lost franchise?  Certainly not!  Imagine that you have been a hunted, hopeless want-to-be worker, never able to stay in one place for long.  You would be glad to give up a vote.  Look what you have to gain!

In summary, I want to demonstrate just one example that leads to everything that is now possible.  The following is a hopefully soon to be adopted script for American Border Guards patrolling north of the southern border:

Border Guard: "Repeat after me."  "I swear by my Honor that I will never vote in the United States of America for a person or law on any political ballot for the rest of my entire life."

Non-Voters: {Repeated vow}

Border Guard: "O.K.  You Non-Voters are free to proceed."

Paul Wharton

Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Whartonian Crunch Theory

    In my studies of Objectivist philosophy and its Aristotelian base, I have usually stuck to promoting Ayn Rand and her allied authors.  However, my experiences over the years have led to several philosophical discoveries that I am mainly only able to credit to myself.  One of these new fields is what I call: Crunch Theory.

The basic tenant of Crunch Theory is that most of the evil in The Universe is caused by individuals reacting to being Crunched.

So, what is a Crunch?

A Crunch is when a fundamental requirement for one's survival, or teleological desire being pursued, is not being satiated properly.  This can range from the most basic of the types of one's life needs--such as: drinking water, food, thermo-regulatory status, sleep, money, transportation, and, (in the case of wartime), such tools as weapons and ammunition--to more sophisticated motivations.

While Crunch Theory does not advocate becoming an altruist open to every charity case that comes by, if one finds oneself in a bind, it really helps if one can understand what is driving a hoard of: hungry, thirsty, or out of work individuals in one's proximity causing oneself a problem.  Maybe there are a few moral ones who do deserve some help.  And, maybe, simply letting someone have a drink of water can lead to saving one's life.

There is one other type of individual in The Universe that causes evil.  This is the Non-Crunched evil doer. This type seeks for evil to be done, but, is not propelled by a Crunch reaction.  It can be very difficult to deal with this type, as no simple donation will relieve an attack for long.

In summary, Crunches are bad.  Any time a fundamentally good and moral individual can be relieved of an easily alleviated Crunch, it is a basic good in The Universe.  However, one must be vigilant to guarding against creating a charity case from one's generosity, and, above all else, be on the lookout for self-propelled Non-Crunched evil.

Paul Wharton

Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter