Friday, April 10, 2020

The Phenomenon Of Lowest Denominator

Somewhere in the fourth or fifth grade, children are supposed to learn about the mathematical notion of "lowest common denominator" as they learn to execute basic arithmetic operations on fractions, such as addition and subtraction.

In other human endeavors, there exists the phenomenon of "lowest denominator", a term that often refers pejoratively to the level to which one will stoop in order to get his way.  There are several dimensions to this idea and many ways and instances in which it is be applied, but the basic idea is that he who is least constrained in his choices of action holds a tactical advantage over his competitors or other rivals.

An excellent example of this comes from late twentieth century economics as it applied and continues to apply to the relationship between China and the world economy.

For decades the cost of labor for products manufactured in America were considered high, but were accepted as part of the general overhead of doing business.  Labor unions, with the aid of corrupted American courts, distorted the American labor markets by forcing upon employers labor costs that a free market would not have sustained.  With time, these costs were driven ever higher, resulting in constantly increasing product costs such that in 1980, top of the line tennis shoes were selling in some cases for well over $200 per pair; that at a time when a man could live well enough in New York City on $200 per week and even have enough left over for some fun on Saturday night.

Then in the 1990s something fundamental changed: "free trade" with China, which offered the competitive advantage to American companies of labor costs so low as to be almost neglible.  Instead of having to pay American employees, say, $15 per hour to make tennis shoes, they could pay Chinese laborers $0.30 cents per hour.  It must also be borne in mind that the $15/hour American labor rate typically represents approximately $45/hour in actual costs to the employer due to onerous US labor laws, requiring them to shell out all manner of fees and other taxes for what has become the privilege of doing business in America.  Your inherent right to provide for yourself has been functionally demoted to that of a privilege, requiring "state" permission, directly or otherwise.  Something wicked has this way come.

With the "miracle" of Chinese "free trade" came not only the vanishingly low labor costs, but the absence of unjust "government" requirements in the form of onerously violative labor law.  All of a sudden, labor stood to cost maybe $3 per pair total, instead of $175.

There may have been those manufacturers who, understanding the unintended consequences of going to China, initially decided they would not jump on that bandwagon.  However, the moment the first athletic shoe manufacturer made the jump to China (or perhaps more likely, Viet Nam), it was not long before the rest were faced with the choice to follow suit, or have their lunch eaten by those who had.

When that first company left for greener labor and regulatory pastures, thus lowering the denominator, so to speak, it gained an advantage over its competitors so large, thereby allowing them to produce shoes of equal quality at costs so low in comparison with their American-based counterparts, they would be able to sell their product at prices deeply undercutting that of the competition while yielding equal or even superior profit.  The competition had no choice but to act in kind, if staying in business was a corporate goal.

By descending to a "lower denominator", a state of diminished restriction, a single manufacturer of shoes is able to alter an entire global industry at its roots.

In a similar way, we can see this phenomenon at work in politics.   Another reasonable example may be taken from the Chinese.  Libertarians, anarchists, agorists, voluntarists, as well as other presumably freedom-loving idealists, often call for the dismantling of US military forces.  While a noble sentiment, the reality is not quite so simple.  It is no secret to some that China, has designs for regional hegemony that includes utter domination of the international waters of the South China Sea.  Being international waters, rather than regional to China, Beijing holds no valid claim to them.  But by lowering the level of self-checking to which the Chinese are willing to subscribe themselves, "lowering the denominator" as it were, other nations such as the USA are faced with the choice of following suit or assuming the risk of finding themselves at a gross disadvantage in the contest of keeping international shipping lanes safe and open for everyone, the loss of which would almost certainly lead to every ship passing through those waters having to pay tribute to the Middle Kingdom, the advent of which would make clear to the world in short order just how bad the global economy could become, having become materially dependent on the production of most goods in China and having not stood up to what would amount to their piracy.

This notion of the lower denominator, which translates very directly in the increased willingness to exercise power without check, is driving the human race to ever deeper extremes of political barbarity.  The implications of this for human freedom, I should hope, are painfully obvious.

Consider the fundamentalist Muslims, scurrying all about in the middle east, sawing the heads from the bodies of those they consider unworthy of life.  They toss suspected homosexuals from the rooftops to their deaths, behead "apostates", stone women who do not toe "Allah's" line of comport, and engage in all manner of other atrocities which the rest of the world condemns as felonious, using their bent interpretations of Qur'an and its false authority to justify their actions.

In places where food becomes scarce, people devolve to a lower denominator of behavior in order to survive.  We see this currently evident in Venezuela, where the imploding socialist economy has resulted in people eating their pets, zoo animals, and so forth down what I suspect is a very ugly list of behaviors to which no typical human being would lower themselves under more normal circumstances.

War is another fair example.  Good men who are otherwise peaceable, don uniforms, grab weapons and go out to murder "the enemy" en masse.  During the American Revolution, the British complained bitterly about those damnable colonists who, rather than stand tall and with honor in lines as prescribed by the "rules of war", hid behind trees and intentionally picked off Redcoat officers, often sending the ranks into some chaos as they were generally less capable of engaging in "proper" warfare without someone shouting orders at them.

And yet, this will to make that descent to the lower denominator was essential if Americans were to defeat what was at that time the most powerful military force on the planet.  And from this we see the other side of the coin, which makes plain that the ultimate assessment of the descent will vary depending on one's point of view.  For the Brits, the American behavior was reprehensible and utterly devoid of any decency and honor.  To the Americans, it was the advantage they needed in order to throw the British vampire form their necks.

The descent is a two-edged sword, the same as most other things in life.  What is not the same, however, is the potential hazard that is presents.  Once a precedent is set, breaking the restraints people place upon themselves, it becomes perilously difficult to return to them.  We humans enjoy expansions of our personal and, in sadly far too many cases, collective powers.  We are bemused with power, even obsessed with it.  This is readily observable in children, watching them learn, which translates directly into greater individual power.  So long as we maintain a level head about such endeavors, we stand to remain well, both individually and as societal conglomerations.  The problem as I have come to see it, is that in far too many instances, we run off the rails in an instant, bedazzled by the lure of newly acquired powers.

Making the descent to a lower denominator more often results in the bad, especially in longer term considerations.  Take, for example, the so-called "war tax" imposed upon Americans in 1942.  It was justified on the basis that the nation was under peril at the hands of the evil Japanese Empire.  The promise made to the American people at that time was that it was a "temporary" tax that would be repealed the moment hostilities concluded.  That, of course, turned out to be a lie.  At war's end, the federal "government" was not about to relinquish the power of so vast an income stream as that afforded them by the good fortune of Japan's terribly ill-considered decision to attack Pearl Harbor.  They now had control of almost incomprehensible sums and, in typical human fashion, were not about to let go of so much as penny of it.

But in the wake of peace, how were the powers that were at that time going to justify such a move, especially in the face of a well-armed population who'd just come out of four years of warfare, had suffered terrible losses, and were most likely in no mood for such chicanery?  The answer was a classic: the Hegelian dialectic, and what better one to choose than the "red menace" of soviet Russia?  Oh yes, they were by all means a threat, but nothing as was blown up in the American press.  But once convinced and sufficiently terrified, Americans blithely obeyed the Master and made no fuss, for they had become willing to trade freedom for an illusion of security.

In the previous case, the descent has proven devastating to freedom because people of low moral character got their hands on power, refused to relinquish it, and have used it to sour ends in ever gaining measure, year over year.

Have we as the human gestalt learned the key lessons from all this dangerous political buffoonery?  No.  If anything, the Meaner (mean or average man) has become habituated to the corruptions of the Tyrant to such a degree that he now defends those perfidies to the point of his own destruction, and beyond, having lost the habit and inclination to ask "what sort of a world do I wish to leave to my grandchildren?"  The circumstance is now so decayed, that Johnny Q Meaner even rationalizes the corruptions of those who presume to lord over him (and the lordship to which he accedes via his lack of meaningful protest), telling himself and teaching his own issue that it's all for the "greater good".  It is unclear that humanity could devolve much further down the ladder of behavior, yet I would not assume it.

And so we return to one of the perennial truths for Freemen: freedom requires of a man a strong moral underpinning such that he is not overly tempted by the charms of his own lower self, which beckons him to make the descent to the equally low recesses of his character, always taunting and tempting him with the lie that it will have no cost associated.  It ALWAYS has a cost, and unfortunately the price associated with the descent is most often more than liberty can afford to pay, men's freedoms and their self-respect ultimately having to pay the price for those lapses of judgment and self-control that lead to that plunge to the lower denominator of human action.

This truth should be taught to every child.  They should not be told that they may never indulge in the descent, but that it always carries with it great risk and hazard.  They should be taught to keep an eye not only on their own choices in such matters, but upon those around them such that they will refuse to tolerate the perfidious acts of their fellow men.  It is only by this cooperative checking of the self and of and by others that we keep each other within the metes and bounds of proper human relations.  Conversely, it is through our willingness to turn blind eyes toward that which we do and, most importantly perhaps, that which is done by others, that it is made possible the rise of personalities such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.  To be taken in by the lies, bent truths, and false promises of one's fellows is an all too human failing.  The promise of free stuff or things too good to be true seems to get us every time.  How else were communists, fascists, NAZIs, Muslims, and all other flavors of authoritarian tyrants able to bring humanity to so low as pass as that in which we now find ourselves?

The sin lies mainly not with those who would become your masters, for how can one blame the snake for biting?  The error lies with us; with our willingness to tolerate that which is intolerable: the violation of our individual freedoms by external parties, pursuant to some idealized lie that usually speaks to the "collective good".

We painted ourselves into this corner and only we can get ourselves out.  And make no mistake about it: we the people of this world, certainly of America, could be free by close of business today, if that is what we decided we wanted in sufficient measure.  Theye have almost no power of their own over us, but mainly that which we willingly hand to them, which they immediately turn back upon ourselves to their advantage, and our loss.  That is the ultimate effect when would be do-gooders and other tyrants are allowed their latitude with no threat of destruction erected against them.

As the denominator lowers ever further, the checks upon the actions of tyrants become ever more sparse and the hazards to Freemen ever greater.

Please consider this and what it means in terms of decisions that you make, whether you make them proactively as a Freeman, or through the default of inaction as someone less than free by your own choice.  What do you really want to be?  Do you want to be free?  If not, then bless you and may the galaxies take pity upon thee.  But if so, what are you willing to do to be free?  What are you willing to sacrifice in order to throw the vampires who suck the life from you from your neck?  Only you can choose for yourself, but make no mistake about the fact that doing nothing is still making a choice: the one to be a slave, kept in his cage like a pet and whose prerogatives exist only at the whim and caprice of other human beings, not a single one of whom holds the least authority to impose their wills upon you.

Be well, preferable freely so, and as always please accept my best wishes.

Saturday, April 4, 2020

War Should Be Hell

Human beings are the oddest creatures.

We have been gifted with the power of reason, and yet we abuse it, misuse it, or turn our backs to it completely.  Consider the ways in which the purportedly "evolved" nations view warfare.  The mere fact that they sign agreements that limit the ways in which war may be waged seems to me prima facie proof that they are gone mad.

In the most general terms, what is the objective of war?  It is to defeat one's enemy.  Why would one fight without the intention of prevailing, regardless of cost?  Yet we are constrained by agreements such as the Geneva Conventions wherein we agree to never do X and to always do Y.  For example, we cannot target civilians and must always house and feed prisoners of war, treat them humanely, and so forth.  This, I declare, is pure rubbish.

So why, then, do we do it?  It is the pure hedging of our bets, that's why.

The thinking goes basically this way: "well, if we kill all the prisoners we take, they will do the same with our people whom the enemy takes prisoner."  We want to fight wars but do not want to pay the price of warring.  This, of course, is absurd beyond absurdity.

If you do not want to pay the price of warring, then do not wage war.  The one exception to this lies in defensive fighting and in that case if you are facing an existential threat, which I will here suggest is the case any time a nation attacks you, then you should be fighting like mad bastards with the intention of committing utter and complete genocide against everyone bearing arms against you.  This is especially the case when you know you have committed no violation against your antagonist.

War should become so ghastly a prospect that nobody on the planet would wish to partake, precisely because the potential and sufficiently likely outcome would be the extinction of your bloodline and those of everyone you know, and for whom you care.  Were this the central concern, how many rulers and their vile, butt-smooching, hand-wringing sycophants would be eager to enter into mortal combat?  Knowing that their children would be hunted and slaughtered, as well as those of every member of their families out to, say, third or fourth cousins, how many of these great heroes of the people would be so eager to press Fearless Leader to send troops into neighboring lands?

How many troops would be eager to obey such orders, knowing their families would be hunted to extinguishment in the event they did not prevail?  How much of an incentive would it be for them to see the virtues of defensive-only action?  How clearly might they see war, not as a chance for glory, but for the thing that it truly is: utter barbarity?

Human history is littered with examples of young men champing at the bit to go to war for the sake of "glory".  The Great War was example enough, the result being an endless sea of regret from troop, sailor, submariner, and pilot alike after realizing the impossible waste that war represents in every imaginable term.  And yet, by the time the next generation comes of age, the lessons of that previous herd are lost or, sadder still, disregarded because the young always know better.  They know what dolts and nitwits were their parents or grandparents and that they will be able to do it right this time.  It is, of course, pure nonsense, and when the waves of mangled bodies and corpses return home, the cycle of bitter regret at lives wasted repeats itself.  It is almost as if we cannot help ourselves.  Almost.

Was should be hell.  It should be waged as bloody annihilation of every human being, including civilians - perhaps especially them - on the losing side.  Make it the rule to commit pure genocide against anyone raising arms against you, knowing that they will do the same in return.

If the spectre of everyone we know and love being brutally murdered in a systematic genocide does not abate our willingness to war, much less our thirst for it, then we as a species are unworthy of our existences in the first place and humanity should then extinguish itself as an obvious matter of basic propriety.  At the very least, we should all shut our yaps and stop complaining about it because we get what we tolerate, so onus rests squarely with every last one of us.

War should be hell.  The very thought of it should fill the minds of men with revulsion and wild fear that everything for which they care will be written from the face of the earth in scorch and death and disease and misery and ultimate disappearance into the mists of eternity.

The very suggestion of going to war for non-defensive purposes should cause a people to immediately rise against those in power who would dare suggest it and kill them and their entire families without hesitation or mercy.

War should be hell.  But once engaged in, defensively speaking, the very roots of the attackers genetic lines should be killed off in totality such that never again will they pose a threat to one's own blood.

It is a horrible way to consider it, but I submit that the current way is far more so, for so long as war entails "reasonable" risks (to whom, exactly?), and those risks amount to near-zero for those driving others into it, we will continue to bloody the innocent for reasons that are never valid.

War should be hell.  Any people worth their moral salt would rise against leaders who aggress against other nations, killing them with prejudice, resolve, and no mercy.  Any people failing to do so are perforce complicit, thereby equally guilty, and therefore worthy of total annihilation.   Make this the rule of humankind, the violation of which brings upon the felons the fruits of their choices, and humankind would change as a pure matter of practical survival not only of the individual's thoughts for himself, but for those around him for whom his affections live.

War should be hell.  Make it so and the human race would undergo a quantum alteration in its views on many matters, the dictates of survival becoming the first-order canon of practical living.

War should be hell.  Not for a few, but for all.  Were it so, one can only speculate as to how eager would the people of Germany been to back the war-mongering Hitler.  As for the Soviets and Communist Chinese, those were internal affairs, horrible as they were, to be left to the people of their respective nation-states, though it is my considered opinion that had they treated Lenin and Mao in the same ways, things would have turned out notably better for both peoples.

War should be hell.  The incentives should lead people to avoid war at nearly any cost with a ready will to slaughter their "leaders" any time it is suggested they enter into a war of aggression.

Have I mentioned that war should be hell?

I have no illusions about people coming to sense on this matter.  Warring will continues as always it has and people will meekly and corruptly accept it as matters of their cowardice, ignorance, desire, and convenience.  But they can no longer claim that they were not given the better idea on how to proceed with respect to aggression waged on a national basis.  It could be stopped today, if we cared enough.  That we do not is prima facie proof of the need for war being made hell for one and all.

Give it some thought before rejecting the notion out of hand.  Look deeply into the issue and I believe you will see the virtue in what it is that I suggest.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Language, Conceptual Stores, And Mental Health

I have noticed through the decades how many people fail to understand the expressive styles of people from ages long past.

The average man seems to regard such styles as those even as recent as Victorian english as "quaint", at best; often "corny", and even "stupid". That of Shakespeare is indecipherable to most and even modernized interpretations of ancient passages such as Song to Inanna, what is generally considered the world's first poem, in the same ill-considered and ignorant ways.

So I will mention this: men of yore departed from us in two essential ways where language is concerned.

Firstly, they respected language, whereas most of us regard it casually, with disregard, and even dismissal. They understood the power of words; their central importance in the lives of humanity, whereas the contemporary meaner has little to no clue whatsoever. Sadly, it appears he has no desire to learn this most centrally important aspect of human life.

Secondly, men of yore were less beset by conceptual noise - the myriad of ideas swimming about in their heads that lead them astray from a more essential mental bearing. The people of ancient Sumer knew nothing of cell phones and the political idiocies of our contemporary times, such as communism for example. The swamping of men's minds with noise that separates them from essential thought cannot be helped, so far as I can tell. It is an unavoidable consequence of the gaining of new knowledge, for better or worse. As that body of concepts grows, the new knowledge and its attendant thought-volume revolves around the more highly-abstracted, newer ideas perforce because they seem more practically relevant to everyday living. This places distance between the mind of the individual and more basic considerations - ideas that were central to the mental lives of the people of ages past.

The farther back in time one goes, the less "polluted" were the minds of people, simply because the store of human knowledge was smaller.

While in some ways we find advantage in this augmented body of conceptual stores, there is a price to pay, which is precisely the fact that the most basic sense becomes foreign to us. My suspicion is that this presents a deep and abiding problem for humanity and my proof of this lies in the fact that the world of humanity is a hot mess and getting messier, rather than less so.

And that is why I have been writing about the basics, in the effort to at least make available little reminders of the most fundamental notions that SHOULD be serving as anchors for our mental and spiritual health.

We do still find such reminders in places such as in religious texts, but those suffer from serious drawbacks, mostly related to language, it's style and how that style deviates from our contemporary usage. Christian writings, the Bible in particular, is a good example of this. The catastrophic example is well represented in Al Qur'an, which has sown more destruction and misery than any other tome, save perhaps the body that represents communist/socialist/progressive philosophy and attendant thought.

The Christian church attempted, however ham-fistedly, to keep people well anchored through the imposition of their political might upon the mass of humanity under their aegis. This, of course, failed miserably in the end precisely because it was forcefully imposed and not made attractive such that people wanted to maintain virtuous relations with the sacred, rather than toeing a line due to fear of dire punishments, whether in this life or that hereafter.

The Muslims took the Christian model and stepped it up several orders of magnitude in error via sheer viciousness, the results being plain to see in places such as the middle-east, which is a study in human disaster.

An interesting aspect of this mental noise is that it is very effectively employed, consciously or otherwise, as a fog into which politico-social chicanery is injected into the minds of men, leaving them less able to understand the truer nature of what is being presented. This is how the scourges of all modern authoritarian thought and action have been so successfully foisted upon the people of the world since the twentieth century, at the very least. When people are separated from basic sense, they are less able to discern nonsense when presented to them, further leaving them unarmed and consequently unable to repel the assaults of the Tyrant upon their innate rights and liberties. When people do not know better, how can they even be inclined to fight the violation of their individual sovereignty?

Retaining the basics is essential to the health and prosperity of the human race. The depressingly absent health and happiness of men is the direct indicator of just how little we as a race of beings have retained of that basic knowledge. That we are so widely separated from the basics bodes deep ill for humanity's future, which is why my suspicion hovers about the thought that nothing short of reset will save the race of men.

Individuals can think their ways out of this sort of trouble, for illumination is the necessary condition for setting then right once more. But such enlightenment means nothing to men as a body gestalt if sufficient numbers fail to come to sense. By that failure are the good dragged into the pit with the rest, and so it appears to me at this time that reset is the only hope remaining to us; an even so deeply and unforgivingly disruptive of daily life that the choice becomes immediately clear to all but perhaps the most stubbornly dull among us: come to sense now, or have your name stricken from the Book of Life.

That, I fear, is the fate that awaits us because I see just this side of zero possibility of a critical mass of humanity so much as wanting to come to sense, much less making the actual effort to do so.

Perhaps none of it matters, but I cannot help but feel deep sorrow for the innocents, the children mainly, who will pay for the sins of the rest.

Ask yourself where you stand on this issue: do you want to know what is right for all men?; how to live properly amid the throng without destroying them and yourself, or being destroyed by the others... or does it just not matter? To that last question, I have no answers for you, but will suggest you turn your thoughts to those whom you love and regard with fondness and care and then consider the question once more.

Be well, and as always please accept my best wishes.

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.