Religion of Wrestling

Wrestling has been used to build character, body, and self defense skills throughout the ages. The most influential type of wrestling, Mongolian wrestling, has its earliest documentation dating NINE THOUSAND years ago. Since then it has appeared in every major civilization I know of. (See also my post the ubiquity of wrestling:  http://bfgalbraith.blogspot.com/2015/01/ubiquity-of-mongolian-wrestling.html )

At the dawn of Judeo-Christianity, it is said that Jacob wrestled an angel. At the dawn of Islam it is said that Muhammad was a wrestler. Even at the dawn of America's own home-brewed form of Judeo-Christiantiy, Mormonism, it is said that Joseph Smith Jr. was a wrestler. Wrestling has been promoted by many religious and educational institutions because it teaches many moral lessons: sportsmanship, mental focus, will power, reflection/repentance/intentional-personal-improvement, humility, hard work and dedication.

Wrestling is essentially this: the core fighting skills you can spar without striking or submission holds. Wrestling skills are also the most absolutely fundamental self defense skills - explosive physical power, awareness of your body, awareness of your opponents bodies, moving left/right/forward, taking opponents off their feet, sprawling when opponents try to take you down, staying out-from-under/on-top of your opponents, physically manipulating your opponents, and rigorous training:

Wrestling is clearly of massive importance to martial arts in terms of both tradition and technique. In early MMA, wrestling was often overshadowed by more submission oriented grappling styles, though over time it has become considered one of the most important martial arts in MMA. Some of the most sophisticated grappling in the world today is BJJ, but even in that sport it is unwise to neglect wrestling skills:

Full Analysis and Discussion: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=124723A good example on why takedowns or setting up a solid guard pull is necessary. Notice the Wrestler only disengages after the BJJ player butt flops, the rest of the match he is the one moving forward to engage.
Posted by Bullshido on Saturday, August 1, 2015

Capitalism vs. Socialism: Part 2

(Before reading this post, if you haven't already, read my original Capitalism vs. Socialism post, where I asserted that in a liberal democracy capitalism and socialism are strongly dependent on each other, and that decreasing one also decreases the other.)

The great recession that started around 2008 has been declared a failure of regulation. Deregulation in the decade before led to a massive failure of the economic system. A compromise of socialism (deregulation) led to a compromise of capitalism (market failure.)

My views on this are strongly influenced by one specific book by Jane Jacobs, called "The Nature of Economies." In that book she shows how small communities start off by importing and exporting, but as they grow and their economies diversify, the less and less dependent they become on export and import. A small town might only be able to get microwave Chinese food mailed to them. However as that town grows, its economy will become strong enough to support their own Chinese restaurant. 

Let's consider the Chinese Restaurant Owner and Operator, who we will call "Chang," verses the local food inspector, who we will call "James." Chang doesn't like it when James stops by, sticks his nose in Chang's freezer, runs around talking temperatures of random food items, and slaps a bunch of warnings on the wall in Chang's prep kitchen, and finally sends him a minor fine in the mail. Chang, capitalist extraordinaire, would just assume James stop wasting his tax money and go find another job.

But let's look at the CAPITALIST consequences of not having food inspectors. First word would get out that there were no food inspectors. Now people are going to be far more hesitant to go out, and the more exotic and daring the food, the less likely they will be to try it. Chang's restaurant definitely takes a significant hit on customers. Second all the food inspectors are out of work, and their salary is no longer contributing to the economy. This only results in less customers for Chang.

But what is especially concerning to me is how many progressives I talk to think that Chang's business isn't important. If his business folds, there are two catastrophic consequences: 1) his small town is now back to ordering microwave Chinese food and 2) his business no longer contributes to the tax base of his community. Both outcomes are terrible, even for socialists.

The implication of all this going forward, is that more government involvement to build more business is what you want to do. For example:

• Instead of doing too-big-to-fail business bailouts, you should establish a small-business welfare system that bales out small businesses in hard times, especially considering that they are the USA's foremost source of employment.
• You should be asking for more small business grants and loans - massively more. We do not have enough to go around until the top students in each DECA club in high schools across the country are able to try out entrepreneurship once they graduate. Microloans should not be the exclusive realm of private NPOs!
• You should be asking for more regulations, not less. Every part-time cog in a government bureaucracy is another potential customer for these businesses. Also, a magnifying glass taken to the new industries popping up will make customers have more confidence in trying out the new things these new businesses come up with.

But here's the punchline: I am not pro-capitalism or a socialist. I am a Technocracy Inc./21-hour work week type of guy. I don't think capitalism, socialist dogma, unions, careers, etc. are even a good idea. However IF you want our current system to work, you should be asking for MORE of it, not less. Capitalism vs. Socialism is a false dichotomy in liberal democracies, they are in fact the only things that prop each other up.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

With the likes of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders running for president in 2016, we are going to hear tons about why socialism is better than capitalism and vice versa. What I will explain here is that they are two sides of the same coin, or in other words, that they act as a yin/yang balance where one supports the other; successful capitalism depends on successful socialism, and successful socialism depends on successful capitalism. Together they form the ideal economic bedrock on which to build liberal democracy.

First let's look at how society has evolved:

1. In a primal state of hunter gatherers, we are not at the top of the food chain. With no significant government, issues around starvation and being eaten by apex predators trump all other concerns regarding right and wrong, family relationships, or anything else we might regard as morality.
2. Once we establish permanent villages - even if those villages are mobile - with strong central leadership that can make decisions for large groups in emergencies - right and wrong can now be considered. No longer at the mercy of apex predators and with a variety of adaptions for dealing with food shortages, meaningful family structures can now form. The problem for the primal village is other primal villages - mankind becomes it's own worst enemy.
3. Once we can establish nations with national leadership - traditionally most commonly monarchies, villages now stop warring with each other, and violence over all is massively reduced, death from natural causes now for the first time in this story becoming more common than being murdered. Most feel strong loyalty to the King and Queen, because they provide the stability everyone needs. Sure there are entrepreneurs in a Monarchy, but they are not able to transcend the peace keeping authority of the royal family. The problem now is that the Royal Family has to more or less decide what is right for everyone, and no matter how intelligent and virtuous they are, it is impossible to make the best decisions for other people.
4. Capitalism emerges as the entrepreneurs get enough power and influence that as a community, they can challenge the power of the monarchy. Now we have many more people involved in the decision making process of how everyone lives, with a wider range of products and services to help people live their lives. The problem is that if the people with money are the ones best positioned to make more money - and in capitalism they always are - the rich always get richer, and as a community the rich end up getting more and more control over all of the wealth. This can eventually end in a currency crisis where money only matters to those who have it, while everyone else resorts to bartering. This can massively degrade society throwing it back into Monarchy or even something more primitive.
5. Socialism arises to cure the ills of capitalism. They fix the problem of wealth concentration by seizing the means of production from the rich and making it all government property. The problem is that innovation slows down when all decisions are being made by the same great bureaucracy, and internal politics dictates what products and services are provided more so than what the people actually want or need to have.
6. Liberal Democracy puts the will of the people first. It is focused on balancing Capitalism and Socialism. The people want the goods and services Capitalism provides but they also want the stability Socialism provides. Liberal Democracies thrive far beyond the more primitive Capitalism of the Old West or industrial revolution because they use taxation and regulation to prevent concentration of wealth collapses. Liberal Democracies thrive beyond the old Socialism of the Cold War because the tolerance of Capitalism provides far more goods and services than a single bureaucracy can manage.

The more Capitalism a Liberal Democracy has, the more Socialism it can have, as there is more money to tax to provide universal stability for the people through social safety nets. The more Socialism a Liberal Democracy has, the more Capitalism it can have as taxes and regulations prevent oligarchies and wealth concentration collapses. My warning here is that in a Liberal Democracy, less of either Capitalism or Socialism leads to less Socialism AND less Capitalism, weakening the Liberal Democracy. If an Liberal Democracy is to grow, it should strive for MORE Capitalism AND MORE Socialism.

Contrary to popular belief, high taxes and robust regulations are exactly how we build Capitalism, while allowing people to embrace investment and consumerism is exactly how we build Socialism. Those who advocate for only one side or the other are ignoring how dependent the two rival systems are on each other when practiced within an Liberal Democracy:

Read Capitalism vs. Socialism: Part 2.