Sunday, February 23, 2020

All Rights Are Property Rights

I was introduced to the notion that all human rights are in fact property rights about a decade ago on an internet forum.  At first I balked at the idea, largely because I'd not thought of things in that way prior, but as I allowed time to work its digestive magic it quickly became clear to me that this was indeed true.

Going back to the definition of a "right", which is a "just claim" to something, it becomes clear upon even superficial consideration that human rights are claims to property.

The immediate objection that arose in my mind upon introduction to the assertion, was that regarding life itself.  I'd never prior considered my life as property.  My life was my own, of course, and yet the idea of it as my property never quite made it to the surface, so to speak.  However, it took very little time and consideration to come to the realization that my life was, indeed, my property, even if the thought implied some sort of separation between "me" and "my life".  But even if we agree that I am my life, who is to say that I cannot own myself?

My right to my life, which is to say my just claim to myself, implies most forcefully the idea that we own ourselves.  Our right to our own lives may be restated as our just claims to our own lives.  So put, the notion becomes more clear and more forceful in its own favor.

Now consider the Other - your fellow human being picked from the great wad of humanity at random.  If we call him Johnny Q. Public, then I ask you this: all else equal, does Johnny Q hold any claim to your life that is greater than your own?  Does he hold any claim whatsoever?  The only answer to which I can ever bring myself is "no" in each case.  How might Johnny Q make a valid claim to YOUR life that is of greater valence and salience than is your own?  What might such a claim look like?  I see no way of answering that question in a manner that does not stem from a presumption that is innately and embarrassingly obvious in its arbitrariness.

If it is correct across all possible pairings of human individuals that a man holds the primary and possibly sole just claim to his life vis-à-vis any other man, then we must perforce conclude that no man holds authority over another, once again and ever so importantly, all else equal.

In other words, so long as I have not trespassed against another, there is nothing that I might do that could justify the interference in my affairs by another.  Whether I smoke a joint on the courthouse steps, employ the services of a prostitute, buy and sell illicit drugs, go helicopter skiing from eighty-foot high ice cornices, or do any of a nearly endless number of things that might cause me serious injury, it is nobody's business that I so engage myself, much less that men in uniforms and with sidearms place me in a cage for it.

The basic and inherent freedom of the human individual directly implies agorism as the only valid societal foundation.  For those not familiar with the term, "agorism" is a philosophy wherein all human interaction between individuals of their majority is undertaken on a strictly voluntary basis.  Coercion and other means of force must not be employed in an agorist society, such use exposing the perpetrator to both criminal and civil liability.

For example, the rape of one individual by another would leave the rapist open to criminal charges and liable upon due conviction to the consequences of his actions.  Someone stealing a stick of gum from another might be liable for recompense, being given the opportunity to make good.  Failure to balance that scale could result in the escalation of charges into the criminal.

As for those who have not attained their majority, they live under a slightly different set of rules whereby their basic rights are maintained, but their individual prerogatives may be validly curtailed for the want of life experience and sufficient physical and mental development.

This brings us to the notion of life itself.  One's life is what we shall call his "First Property".  It is literally the first thing with which the living entity is endowed.  The entity owns itself, leading to the idea that he is autodiathistically entitled to keep and dispose of himself as he may see fit.  It is also eminently arguable and seemingly self-evident that one's life is also cardinally "first" in significance.  Therefore, "First Property" appears to these eyes to be a truly appropriate moniker and appellation.

Upon one's acceptance of the notion of his First Property, the rest of human rights as those pertaining to the property of the individual come into sharp focus, usually with little to no help.

I own my life, which is to say that I own myself.  That which I materially or intellectually come to possess through no demonstrably criminal act also becomes my property.  As I stroll along the Gulf Coast, I come upon a sea shell that I find beautiful, I am free to pick it into my physical possession and take it with me wherever I may choose, for as long as I might.  The taking having constituted no crime, the shell becomes my exclusive property.  Being property, I retain and reserve the right to defend it from destruction or theft at the hands of another, for unless I voluntarily relinquish exclusive ownership of the shell, nobody else may lay claim to it and act upon that claim as if it were valid.  In such cases of a counterclaim, we have courts who, in their presumed wisdom and impartiality, will hear the case to be made by one man against the claims of another, to some object or other asset, and render judgment as to whom said asset belongs in exclusive, or partial right.

When one begins to consider themselves and all that surrounds them in terms of property rights, their ideas of how the world properly works becomes far more clear, if deeply altered.  Lo and behold the world becomes an easier and better place in which to live.

Be well, and until next time please accept my best wishes.


In this post I will depart a mite from the standard purpose of discussing issues that relate to human liberty directly and touch upon one that could strike deeply, however obliquely, to the same issue.

There is much debate over whether covid19, the so-called "corona virus" of Chinese origin, is a weapon.  If you know the basics of that which drives bioweapon design, the confusion should subside at least in good part, though your unease may not.

There are a few holy grails after which the designers seek:

1: long latency (incubation) period.  Thus far it is confirmed the latency is at least 14 days with some reports claiming as much as 24.  This is quite long, so here we have a mark in favor of this being a weapon, and a rather suspicious one at that.  Think of how far and how many people may travel from a single place in two weeks' time in this age of air travel.  China with its billion and a half people could have thousands of individuals in every nation on earth in much less time than that.  Thousands of highly contagious people could spread the virus to such an extent that there comes with it effectively zero hope of containment on any mass scale.

1a: And what if the actual latency varies between individuals such that in some people the agent incubates at intervals counted in months?  Highly varying latency between individuals reduces predictability, which leaves people in a state of relative uncertainty not only as to the nature of the bug, but diagnostically, and also in terms of how human organizations such as "government" tend to respond.  The less predictable the bug, the more difficult becomes our decision-making processes, diagnostics, etc.  The longer a bug has to spread and the less telltale the outbreak pattern, the better for the wielder of the weapon.

2: Sudden onset.  The virus appears to bring on symptoms rather suddenly.  Mark the second, if a less convincing one.

3: High contagion during latency.  It seems clear that the covi19 virus is at least very contagious during the latency period, if not wildly so.  Mark the third.

4: High lethality.  Because the numbers reported are not to be trusted, especially those offered later in the reporting cycle, it becomes very difficult to determine the rate of lethality.  The possibly less-massaged numbers from January suggest a lethality of around 30-35%, which is very high.  Those figures may not be representative of the truth, but then again the same may be said for those reported later on, which suggest far lower danger.  Therefore, we remain in limbo on the question of the kill rate.  But if perchance lethality is that high and this bug goes pandemic, which it now looks like it may, we are talking about nearly three billion dead at the speculated rate.  Let us hope it proves less lethal.  We cannot quite issue mark the fourth due almost certainly to the lies of the Chinese government.

5. A vaccine exists.  If a vaccine already exists, and thus far there is no way of knowing, then the likelihood that covid19 is a weapon comes to perhaps 95% or greater.  No mark in favor due simply to a lack of data.

We see three of five elements are marked in speculative favor of the covid19 virus being the product of willful human endeavor pursuant to the goal of developing a weapon.  Sixty percent is not quite damning, but it gives great reason for pause.  If this proves to be a weaponized organism, nobody should be surprised.

With this issue arise potentially great implications for human freedom as this is the precise sort of chaotic circumstance that permits for enormous force behind a tyrant's moves to gather ever greater power and false authority into his hands at the cost of individual liberty.  In this sense, a pandemic of a highly lethal biological agent is functionally no different than that of a more conventional "terrorist" attack.  It is, in fact, far greater a threat for any of several reasons, not the least of which is that the parties responsible always hold some plausible deniability.  If there is no positively identified enemy beyond "mother nature", then there is nobody against whom to train one's weapons, further meaning there could possibly be no secure victory against the instrument of one's destruction.  This is the brand of chaos that could be employed as the justification for utter usurpation of all power, whether by design from the get-go or by the pure opportunity of happenstance.

The justification of public health and national survival, when couched in the context of a general terror of a deadly plague, stands to meet with near-universal public acceptance.  Frighten people sufficiently and they will surrender to you anything you might demand, if you can convince them even for a brief moment that you and only you are capable of delivering them from catastrophe.

Whatever the truth, I would advise one and all to keep their eyes on this issue to see how "government" ultimately responds.  My tendency is to expect further claims to power with commensurate denigration of the individual prerogative.

Let us hope this does not prove out in the worst way imaginable, but be prepared for it in any case.

Be careful out there, and as always please accept my best wishes.

Thursday, February 13, 2020

GovernMENT Is Cancer

The degree to which "governMENT" exists in any given land and is freely accepted is a direct measure of the corruption of the people therein. If we are to have governMENT beyond the governANCE of each man over himself, then let it be so minimal that it becomes difficult even to detect that it is there.

GovernMENT's role should be to take into hand those cases where men fail to govern themselves, and even then the bodies of men functioning as such an institution must be treated with utmost suspicion that borders on contempt. The people must be ready to strike down with great and cruel resolve any governMENT which steps from the metes of its delegated authority so as to remind every individual in the land the hazards that await anyone as reward for treachery against their fellows.

"GovernMENT" should fear we, the people, with the deep thunder of knocking knees. They should live in abject terror of those whom they serve, the least thought of any presumption to rule shivering their souls to shards long before any action is so much as contemplated.

It is time to rein "governMENT" in. It is time to scrub the legislative gene pool free of the false law Theye call "statute" which serves but as pure trespass against the rightful prerogatives of free men.

Time is here; time to become a righteous people; a free people.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Beware The Phenomenon Of Trump

Since about 2015 we have been seeing and hearing about the huge turnouts of Americans to the manifold Trump rallies. It is quite amazing to behold, given the past several decades of American political somnambulism. While potentially encouraging, I must advise caution and warn of the possible dangers lurking with the rise of President Trump.

My reasoning is as this: it is arguably good that people are becoming in some ways and measures politically aware, and at least active enough to show up to events, which prior to 9/11/2001 most were clearly not. The good here is the increase in interest and action. But is it enough? That remains to be seen, and therein lies one of the hazards - what if this is a flash in the pan? What if we have not the commitment to see a vision to its completion? More troubling still, is there even a vision present, or are the tens of millions of Trump supporters representative of tens of millions of half-baked and disparately vague notions, desires, and impulses? This should be a very real and immediate concern for anyone with a genuine and abiding interest in freedom and its prospects.

The potential bad: this becomes a cult of personality. Hitler and his Germany were in this sense a similar circumstance. Conditions were bleak, the Man rose in the wake of rhetoric that struck chords with a sufficient mass of the people, and he got things done. I am in no way accusing or equating here, but only observing the similarities in terms of the circumstances and historically-demonstrated human habit.

Further bad potential: the throng comes to rely on the icon to get it done, rather than taking responsibility for their own better interests, which includes becoming smart on certain crucial matters, and refusing to pimp those responsibilities off onto others whose trustworthiness can never be safely assumed regardless of outwardly apparent saintliness. This is perhaps the single greatest threat to the welfare of humanity, taken as a gestalt. It is certainly a central causal factor as to how so much abject misery has managed to rise in the human world and come to be accepted as inevitable, the mean man telling himself resignedly that this is just the way things are. Perhaps the worst of it is the apparent fact that this does not arise in mean man out of malice, but as the result of personal corruptions of which he is perhaps not even aware.

Untimely and gratuitous death, poverty, disease, and misery are not inevitable; certainly not on the immense scales to which history bears grim witness. They are vastly avoidable, far more so than the degrees to which we currently observe. But effective elimination requires proper human freedom, which in its turn requires the attitude of the Freeman. Restructuring one's world view from that of Weakman to Freeman is no mean task. It is monumentally difficult, and as we may readily witness it has thus far remained an unattained realization on a large-scale basis. The rot and cancer of the Weakman's mindset is deep and terribly destructive, for it is as the depiction of the vampire's victim in novels such as King's "Salem's Lot": once bitten, the victim no longer wishes to escape, but rather to give himself utterly to his murderer.

Think carefully on this and then ask yourself what it is that you really want from yourself, for yourself, of and for your life. What would you have for the lives of those whom you love and hold with deep regard and affection? Becoming and remaining in the servitude of pretty slavery is easy, but only so in a very false and deceptive way, for it is as living death even if one is unable to readily perceive it as such, particularly at the time of infection.  

Choosing the path of freedom is eminently difficult, but the life of the Freeman is exhilarating, as well as challenging and even quite frightening at times. The benefits of freedom do not come at zero cost to those who would be free, nor should those costs be viewed as taxations upon the appeal of liberty. Rather, the proper view of those costs are that they constitute much of the spice of life; they are challenges worthy of free men who meet them with courage, strength, honor, dignity, eagerness, great love, and the heartfelt generosity and charity that the Superior Man carries within himself throughout his days.

The mere existence of the Weakman is, in contrast, dull such that if one remains in this world long enough in such a state, the prospect of his end becomes greatly welcomed, even if only unconsciously, for the boredom and the taxing mental poverty of it all becomes too much for even the most tepid and timid to bear. The condition of the Weakman acts in diametric opposition to the fundamental nature of the human animal, and yet just as with any other disease, we are as individuals all prone to such contamination, the result of which appears most often as a fate far worse than death.

So my rarely given advice to all the good people who support the forty-fifth president of the United States of America is that they take to heart my call to caution, self-examination, and to make it a point to learn what it truly means to be properly free, if freedom be decided as one's personal desire.

As always, please accept my best wishes.

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Political Freedom In An Unfree World

The world is run by two major factions: tyrants and willing slaves, the two in my very rough estimation comprising about 99.5% to 99.9% of the world's population. Some small dreg of the remainder is comprised of those very few humans who do not share the mindset of either controlling interest, but are in fact free men. There is much to discuss on these matters, yet so little of value has been put forth that is worthy of pursuit, architecting, tuning, and realization. The vast majority of humanity are, in their minds, willing slaves to those who presume to lord over them. They are do deeply hoodwinked, so blinded to the greater truth regarding proper human relations, there is little to no hope that they can be brought around to the veracity of their innate status as free beings. Such people, the vast majority of all humanity, are bred and trained to fear, and consequently hate actual freedom. They have been long marinated in the mental swill that bends their thoughts and perceptions to the will and convenience of the tyrant. And so it has gone for thousands of years to ever growing advantage of the would-be lords of humanity as the body of man's knowledge has grown, hitting what currently appears to be at least the beginning of an asymptotic stride upward such that even a single man can now wield nearly unimaginable degrees and sorts of control over vast populations. The oddly paradoxical element in all this, however, is that those of the tyrant class are every bit the inmates as those over whom they presume their false authority as valid, the only differences lying in the dimensions and appointments of their respective prisons. Theye are every bit as trapped in their roles as tyrants as are those who willingly submit to the various and manifestly cruel oppressions. In this way, the slaves are not only willing participants in the play that is human politics, they hold an oblique brand of odd authority over the tyrants as well, the practical upshot being that Theye are as shackled as are the rest. The result is a system of mutually reinforcing authoritarianism whose truer nature is belied by the superficial differences between the respective roles. Theye only think they are in charge in some gestalt manner, suffering under the symmetric delusion that the proles have no power over them. This, however, is in itself deeply delusional, for Theye have no more access to freedom than do those of the slave class. The moment one is able to realize this truth, the machinations of the so-called "elites" become mostly droll with punctuations of hilarity. Hilarious and boring it would all be, were it not fo the fact of Theire murderous natures, but that is a topic irrelevant to this far more fundamental topic. The ruler and the ruled form a gestalt, a whole. Each has devolved in such manner that each can no longer live without the other, even though they both seem, statistically speaking, to believe that each is somehow better or more important than the other. They are, in fact, equally corrupt and responsible for the grand and miserable fiasco that is the human race. But what of the one percent of the one percent; that small handful of men who not only see themselves as free, but who act in accord with that very belief to the greatest degree possible, which does not bring the wrath of master and slave alike upon them and those dear? Those are the people to whom my concern and affections turn, for they are the only examples of the human animal worthy.

What, indeed... Given the Gordian Knot of mutually fortifying corruption between ruler and ruled, is there a social architecture that allows for meaningful freedom in the vast oceans of putrescent tyranny? I am not sure, but I have given this much thought over the decades. The older I get and the more clearly I see the hopelessness for the greater wad of humanity, the clearer it becomes to me that the ideal of anarchy is currently unworkable in any population other than those of trivial proportions. In my opinion and based on my observations of contemporary human societies, humans were not designed to do well in the large populations we currently see. Rather, they appear to better flourish in comparatively tiny groups that are more akin to extended families than great undifferentiated wads of fungible units. This truth seems to eliminate anarchy as a viable option for the human world as it currently exists. Barring a "reset event", one that is so deeply disruptive of daily reality as to present every living man with a set of clear and immediate choices that bear on their abilities to survive from one moment to the next, the future for ideal and proper human freedom appears bleak. All, however, is not lost. The next best thing, which so far as I can see may be configured so as to be nearly indistinguishable from non-formalized anarchic life, is what some call "minarchy". I am not particularly fond of this moniker as it carries certain baggage that appears to lead to little better than endless bickering precisely due to the typically poor habits of language and, thereby, thought of far too great a plurality of humans. The best I have been able to concoct for my own purposes is "panarchy", suggestive of the fact that governance is the responsibility of every man, rather than some elite subgroup upon whom personal responsibility is pimped by the corrupted masses who wish to be free of their personal obligations pursuant to the proper conduction of daily commerce between men.

But central to the notion of anarchic or panarchic life is the concept of autodiathism, which is nothing fancier than the idea that people hold the right and the corresponding responsibilities of self-determination. The freedom to choose for oneself how to live and what to do on a moment by moment basis is inherent to men. There exist none of the falsely concocted "societal" obligations forwarded and in many cases foisted by master and slave alike. The only obligation of one man to his fellows is that he refrain from violating the equal claims of others. The rubric of the Free Man is the canon of the Golden Rule itself. It is simple, clear, complete, and correct, requiring no modification of any sort.

This all said, what then is the practicable solution for free men? Separation, plain and simple. Physical separation is very helpful, but mental and "spiritual" or "attitudinal" segregation are paramount, as is that of deeply ingrained habit that comes only through endless repetition and refinement such that these qualities become one's first nature.

To this end, territorial secession becomes a deep practical necessity, particularly in the absence of a binding and unifying sense of the sacred such as that found in various religious communities such as those of fundamentalist Jews. But even that is not a good replacement for physical territories wherein the inhabitants are nominally safe from the violent predations of the tyrant. Consider those same Jewish communities in places such as New York City. There is great cohesion within the Lubavitcher community, and yet they are not quite properly free a they remain beholden to the violative ordinances of the municipality, the so-called "Sullivan Laws" coming immediately to mind, which prohibit them from keeping and bearing arms for defense of the individual and the community at large. This sad truth leaves those people and all like them in a degraded state where either they comply with the "law" or risk severe repercussions if they choose not to comply with the possession of a firearm without the approval of the "state". In my opinion, this is no way to live. It is certainly not a free man's living.

And so it would appear that given the current circumstances, the best practical base step is to secede as a group in physical and legal possession of a territory and establish a conceptually separate entity that has well defined physical borders and a properly architected social order upon which all residents are in sufficient agreement such that everyone is able to live as he pleases so long as he does not engage in violations of the equal prerogatives of his neighbors.

Furthermore, and contrary to the common wisdom of the so-called "left" or "progressives", "socialists", "communists" and other mentally unsound sorts, if the new society is to survive, much less flourish, a clear, sufficient, and faithfully applied set of rules must be set into place that controls those borders, as well as who is allowed to cross them. Americans knew and accepted this as intuitively obvious until comparatively very recently in their history. Today, the progressives prattle on endlessly about how we as Americans are absolutely obliged to admit any and all comers to this land of opportunity, regardless of their political biases against the dominant culture, their hatred of the people of this land, any wildly communicable diseases they may carry, and so forth. This, of course, is raving, suicidal madness. It is of interest to note how those same people appear to have no issue whatsoever with other nations controlling their borders, often in what might be viewed as draconian fashion.

To summarize, the best and most practically viable path toward the establishment of a place in which free men are allowed to exercise their full prerogatives as such are as follow:

  1. Begin at the beginning, which involves the identification of the set of rules by which the residents of the free land will comport themselves without coercion, but rather with understanding and the eagerness that arises therefrom.
  2. Inculcate the members with the spirit and specifications of the Freeman. Teach them to recognize, distinguish, and understand the differences between Freemen and Weakmen. Teach them to value the Freeman and to pity and despise the sadly corrupted Weakman who poses endless dangers to himself and everyone around him.
  3. Teach to deep understanding and appreciation the centrally vital role that language plays in the life of the Freeman, ensuring that everyone as a matter of basic culture understand how lost they are without profound skills in the art and science of verbal communication; that they are little more than an empty shells without a well and sharply tuned facility of spoken and written language. The importance of this cannot be overstated.
  4. Render aware the two-edged nature of freedom, benefits and costs, rights and responsibilities.
  5. Render aware that which freedom demands of a man, specifically:
    • Intelligence
    • Smarts (intellect developed into practical knowledge and skill)
    • Courage
    • Integrity
    • Generosity
  6. Inculcate and attitude of eagerness for those demands, such that they regard them as great things to which to aspire, rather than as things to be dreaded and avoided at nearly any cost.
  7. Self-respect
  8. Respect for others
  9. Value in one's relationships
  10. Rights: what they are, their characteristics, how they work and, equally importantly, how they do not.
  11. Respect for property
  12. The beauty and value of love
  13. Identify a territory, such as a county-sized region, and settle it with large numbers of like-spirited cohorts. Attempting to secede on a statewide basis is likely too ambitious.
Secession, while a fine idea in principle and likely the only practically meaningful path toward liberty, must be undertaken with great planning and care, lest the result end up as just more of the same old tyranny.

Unlike pretty slavery, freedom is difficult. As much as it is exhilarating, is can be exhausting and terrifying because it demands much, while offering no guarantees whatsoever. The things it does offer, however, are opportunity and, ... itself!

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Saturday, November 16, 2019

Ending The "Deep State"?

The Deep State, or DS from here on in, is loosely defined as the body of entrenched governmental officials whose tenures at duty span the comings and goings of multiple administrations. As such, the potential for long-term, concerted, rational, coherent corruption not only exists, but has in fact become commonplace. With time the rot, once established, can grow as the entrenched few gain internal clout and recruit and emplace those of their feather, growing their ranks and advancing their agendas. By this means has power been usurped and cultivated, affecting the brands of change desired, which invariably runs toward tyranny.

In 2016, Donald J. Trump became the forty-fifth president of the United States, at least in part upon his promise of "drain[ing] the swamp", which was his way of referring to the DS.

Given the definition, it would seem clear that if we value freedom, purging the DS would be one of the things to do, and I assert that indeed it is. But such a cleansing is not sufficient to the longer term prospects for freedom. As things stand, what is there to prevent a new DS from arising in the future? The answer, I am sad to say, is "nothing". There is nothing to prevent a new legion of tyrants from coming into power, which means that something needs to change.

Purges may be all well and good, though historically they tend to become bloodbath disasters for reasons we will not discuss here, but when the division of labor that serves us so well in some respects is allowed to remain in the realm of politics, tyranny becomes virtually guaranteed. Division of labor in the political arena is what leads to the rise of a Deep State, pretty much guaranteeing it. When applied to political offices, a division of labor results in specialization in the machinations of the so-called "government".

With governmental specialization comes the notion of expertise along comparatively narrow lines of skill and, presumably, duty. In the case of political establishments, there attaches to the notion of expertise the often tacit idea of exclusivity of authority precisely because we speak of political office. The logic is a bit more complicated than just this, but even this comparatively superficial description reveals the tortured nature of the reasoning behind these often unstated positions. It is, in fact, absurd and wholly unsustainable, save for the fact that these "rules" are kept deeply tacit such that explicit expressions are avoided in order to keep people in the dark, that they not come to understand how it is they are being subjugated as functional slaves under the boot-heal of those who presume themselves the masters.

Unlike with any other organization, the stations of the various political offices claim exclusive authority to command the behavior of the rest. This is a subtle form of evil that is more dangerous than all the armies of the world, combined. The most frightening and sad fact in all of this is that for the most part, the wad of governed humanity meekly accepts this exclusivity with no effective opposition, like sheep obediently trudging along the chute to be slaughtered.

Let nobody occupy any governmental station long enough to become an entrenched "expert". Some may claim that this will lead to having unqualified people in positions of governance. To this I say "GREAT!!". Let there be no experts. Let there be nobody holding the brands of exclusivity of authority that is commonplace today. Let all power be questioned and challenged daily. Let the conditions be such that deep expertise is no longer required because governance is conducted along the simple lines of the basic principles of proper human relations, rather than the chicanery of special interests the leads to unnatural complication, which in turn is used as the justification for entrenched experts whose words cannot be questioned.

It is all well and good to remove the corruption, but unless we restructure our attitudes and our roles to best ensure it never rises again, we all but guarantee that it will. This means that not only must the division of labor in government be eliminated and disallowed into the deep future, but the void created there must be filled by "ordinary" men - generalists who, while not as expert in the various offices, don't need it and, in fact, recoil from the idea of it. All men must become governors, primarily of themselves, but also willing and able to assume an office.

Until we become a race of political generalists, we doom ourselves to ongoing tyranny, subjugation, oppression, and to suffer all the degradations of health, happiness, fortune, and liberty that tyranny universally brings at the hands of the specialists who claim sole authority to tell us what we may do, cannot do, and are compelled to do.

We do not need leaders if we are all leaders of our own lives. Stop trusting and depending upon others for your basic needs, your political needs, your liberty, your choices. Be your own president, as it were. Lead yourself. Govern yourself. Learn the principles of proper human relations and render them your second nature. Become the Superior Man and, rather than shrink from the responsibilities and obligations that carry therewith, revel in them, in the power that it confers. It can be done, if you really want it.

Do you?

As always, please accept my best wishes.

Friday, October 25, 2019

Structural Rights

The term "natural rights" appears to give a great many people, most of whom appear to my eyes to be something of cynics, great heartburn. Though the world needs more jargon about as much as we all need additional holes in our heads, I would like to offer a term in the spirit of easing the violent rejection experienced by so many who rebel against notion of "natural rights".

The term I would like to introduce is "structural rights", a designation synonymous with "natural rights". Why, then, offer up yet another term for the same concept? Just as many people turn off at any mention of religion that is not cursing or damning it, so it has been with talk of natural rights, which I suspect is often intimately associated with "God-given rights", which brings us right back to the religion issue and the related aversions.

Whatever the true reason, a great number of people reject the concept of natural rights, often with protestations that run along the lines of the belief that there are no such things, replete with the notable absence of anything even vaguely resembling a valid argument in support of the assertion. That, of course, is quite untrue, but if one wishes to enter into discourse of the nature of our fundamental rights as human beings, one must first be able to get others to listen.

Therefore, if the exchange of ideas is the intermediate objective in order to bring others to a better understanding of what rights actually are, perhaps with a goal of persuasion, we have to be able to get the ideas on the table before people turn off or, ever more commonly today, go on a war footing.

For many, "natural rights", appears to have an air of some tacit and invalid bias about it, whereas "structural rights" is more neutral sounding, rather than something that's escaped the inner sanctum of the great temple at Hokum. When presented in this seemingly neutral cast, I have found in many cases that people remain off their guard and actually listen to what it is you have to say thereafter.

What can we say of our structure as beings? The short logic chain might look something like this:
  1. We all live 
  2. That which lives appears to universally wish to remain so, all else equal 
  3. Wishing to remain alive, it follows that we claim our lives as our own; what I have termed our "First Property". 
  4. Our claim to life is precisely our right to life because a right is defined as a "just claim". 
  5. Therefore, by virtue of being alive and wishing to remain so, we assert our claims to our First Property, that is, our very structure as beings. 
  6. By extension, we further stake our claims to that which sustains our structures as living beings. 
  7. Our structure as living beings, part of which is the drive to remain alive, leads to our claims to life and all that which is necessary to not only survive, but preferably to thrive. 

The foregoing is by no means a perfect argument, but it is on the right path and is offered that one might get the basic gist of the argument that explains the nature of rights.

Our very structure as beings drives us to the claims we call our rights. It is precisely because we all share those drives in common, and act pursuant to the interests those claims seek to serve, that no man holds the authority to dismiss such claims of his fellows. This is the true meaning of "equality" between individuals. Our structural rights are equal between us because we share identical claims to life at the most abstract level.

One man cannot validly assert a greater claim to his life than I do to mine, for the contention makes no sense on the one hand, and cannot in any event be validly proven, on the other. Furthermore, one man may not validly assert a greater claim to the life of another than the other may to his own. It can be well argued that one man can assert a claim to the life of another man, certainly not without consent, and all else equal.

The very structures we share as living entities defines our rights and establishes the true and proper senses of our equality as living beings.

"Structural rights" as an alternative card to play may prove a good tool to keep up your sleeve in the event you run into one of those sorts who runs from "natural rights" as if he were on fire.

For what it is worth the alternative phrasing is offered, and as always please accept my best wishes.