"Liberalism", "Conservatism", and the playing of other men's games.

Greetings once again.  Today I will briefly address so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" as contemporarily defined by the much distorted terms "liberalism" and "conservatism".

I am a bit loathe to broach this subject on the terms upon which I plan, largely because I do not care for such words as "liberal" and "conservative" in this context.  They tend to paint very misleading pictures of reality, largely through the innuendo of the words themselves, much as do "left" and "right" in the context of political arguments.  The latter, for example, by purely oblique implication suggest that the salient structure of the so-called "political struggle" is one of a lateral nature along some spectral continuum, left generally painted as wanting to "burn that mutha down" and right usually represented as the "establishment", replete with its kamikaze death grip on the status quo, hatefully paranoid in their covetousness.  Even the most casual but competently applied scrutiny reveals the deeply fallacious and misleading nature of this way of viewing contention between groups of people.  And yet, so few on either side appear either able or willing to subject their paradigm to even the mildest honest analytical examination.  They are dug in for the duration, it appears, in a frighteningly massive plurality of "left" and "right".  I fear this will greatly aid in the undoing of humanity.  I believe it already has.

Sticking to the point of this essay, my reticence aside, it seems to me that the term "liberal" and what it actually means in real life practice, bears some of that scrutiny.  It needs to be exposed for the dangers that the common notion of the term seems to pose to all that is right and good about people.  It is in no way intended to let the so-called "conservative" off the hook, for his average self, too, carries significant guilt in his own rite.  While I find such people to be less of a threat than "liberals", it is a marginal difference at best and insufficient and largely irrelevant in any case.  


The first thing I will assert is that the so-called "liberal" has no love of actual liberty, but only of a very badly distorted notion of it. Proper human freedom frightens him endlessly, such that he rails against it like a child in a state of unbridled terror. There is no apparent upper brain function involved in his reactions and opinions; there is only a midbrain in operation, apparently gripped in irrational and morbid fear that falsely signals immediate and mortal danger at anything that resembles actual human freedom.  This is readily observable in their reactions to so-called "conservatives", for example, when the latter call for personal accountability in a general sense.  This riles the "liberal" endlessly because responsibility for one's actions IN A GENERAL MANNER is one of those things in which they appear to have no interest.  This is a very convoluted aspect of "liberalism", for the philosophy is not one of generally architected principles, but rather of very specifically contrived "values", seemingly designed not to bring about a state of general freedom for all men, but rather a narrowly defined chute through which to corral all men, while labeling it as "freedom".  Such irony.

The "conservative" is similarly fearing of real liberty, if to a lesser degree.  Many are religious zealots who would see their basic "values" imposed upon the rest.

The "liberal" vision is one of tightly managed living where people are disallowed the exercise of their basic human rights except those that are "approved" by so-called "government" or "the state";  that which meets any given day's specification for being "politically correct".  This is pure tyranny in the worst sense of the word, identical in its basic character to that of the Soviets and the Red Chinese who butchered in the neighborhood of 200 million people in about half a century's time.  Under the liberal utopia, no man is allowed an opinion that lies outside of the established boundaries of thought.  For this he would stand to be greatly "corrected" through means not unknown to the great and murderous tyrants of the twentieth century, whether it be shunning, reeducation facilities, prison, or even liquidation.  This is one of the respects where the "liberal" parts company widely with the "conservative", the latter being far less willing to visit such great harms upon those who do not agree with their specific values.  The "liberal" can be murderously vicious in his sentiments, which is very commonly observable every day, for example, on the many social media sites.  Sins are certainly committed on all fronts, but those who identify as "liberal" appear to me to take the cake in those terms, up to and including wishing death upon the innocent children of those who dare disagree with their views.  It is truly disturbing to witness, and leaves me wondering where the race of men is really headed.

The "conservative" vision is also tightly managed, though to a notably lesser degree.  But at the end of the day it is irrelevant because the result is the unauthorized circumscription of men's valid prerogatives to act.

The liberal appears to hate one thing above all else: generalized responsibility for himself - what he thinks, how he feels, and most saliently, what he does.  It requires no great feats of analytical prowess to reveal this truth about such people.  Why are they typically like this?  I cannot say for certain, but fear seems to play a part, as does avarice and a general state of personal corruption. None of that, mind you, is intentional.  The average man identifying as "liberal" seems to me to be very well intending, but their intentions are terribly misguided and their ire for all not of their ilk, extreme in its violence.

Liberalism, as currently mal-defined, strongly seems to be a mental disorder of some sort; a disease of perception, mainly, that appears to amplify everything in a man that is base, corrupt, and criminal, albeit unintentionally in my presumption. At the same time, it attenuates most of that which is noble and good in the human animal. It causes stupidity to be raised high upon the altar of worship and intelligence to be reviled, spat upon, and cast out, all the while labeling each as its diametric opposite.  Similarly, the "conservative" holds distorted notions of "decency" and is equally willing to impose his values upon those who do not share them.

The only way for the corrupt, cowardly, and criminally-leaning man to flourish as himself in the world of his fellow men is to drive them to the same state as his own, thereby making his kind the norm and the good man the outlier; the freak. This has been accomplished across much of the world, America sadly included in that set of altered places where nobility and faith to a valid standard of comportment has been all but openly criminalized.  This seems to indicate that there is some subpopulation of such people who, in their desire to freely exercise their perfidious predilections in a world that priorly rejected them, they have set out to gain acceptance, by hook or crook.  This work appears to be progressing swimmingly well.

Much like his "conservative" counterpart, the "liberal" is largely about "one-size-fits-all" (OSFA) politics, which in itself is not an error if contrived and applied properly.  But just as with his counterpart, the "liberal" chooses wrongly, acting at a level of conceptual abstraction where OSFA cannot function without the use of brute force, which is the first indication that something is amiss in one's political architecture.  The other is the fact that, despite the application of such force, people still fail to comport themselves in accord with that which you have imposed upon them.  They rebel, whether positively or passively.  Such is the world in which we now live - one where force is the cornerstone of life.  Such an arrangement cannot, in my opinion, endure over the longer term, and when it becomes entrenched like a cancerous growth in the life of a culture, when finally it fails, the history is clear on the nature of the failure: it is almost always blood-soaked in extreme violence.

Worse yet, the disease has spread into all corners of the culture, with all manner of others suckered into assuming the tenets of an enormously destructive political outlook. Consider the "gay community" as a prime example. Statistically speaking, those people drank the liberal koolaid and it has turned many of their numbers into monsters. Consider the issue of "normality" as it applies there. If one takes the time to look into a dictionary for "normal", the definition is clear: that which is common or greatly predominant, being the gist of the semantics.  But let me not work on memory.  Here's a typical definition from dictionary.com:

normal

adjective

1.

conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; natural

Gays have, for at least 40 years, been going on in their efforts to convince the rest of the world that homosexuality is "normal".Being gay is NOT normal in that is NOT predominant.  As to whether it is "natural", who cares?  Since when is "natural" or "normal" required?  Are tattoos and body piercings "natural"?  Is dying one's hair?  Driving a car?  Fly aircraft, for pity's sake?  We humans do all manner of unnatural things, whatever "natural" might even mean in such cases.  "Naturalness" is a non-issue there, yet gay people commonly go on and on about how it is perfectly so, usually against people who will likely remain unconvinced.  They have accepted premises that have no bearing upon the broader questions at hand.  In doing this they have brought great harm to themselves.

So why, then, do the gays feel this apparently burning need to force the rest of the world to accept them as "normal" and "natural"?  I will submit that the reasons are not terribly relevant.  What is important, however, is the fact that such people have gone down a very bad path of reasoning and that they hurt themselves more than they help.  Why?  Precisely because they place themselves, their choices, their very freedom to be what they choose, at the mercy of considerations that have absolutely no authority in such questions.

Unfortunately, when you point out such things, many gays and other "liberals" get their undies in a great pinch, often responding with the standard drivel that includes the pointing of fingers as they cry "HATER!" and "HOMOPHOBE!!", as if those incantations were supposed to actually mean something. 

A truly significant point here is that those people are playing someone else's game - that of the progressive liberal. They are so busy trying to force others to regard them as "normal", they completely miss the fact that "normality" is NOT a requirement for living one's life as he pleases; it is not required of the FREE MAN.  Were it so, there would be no driving cars, flying planes, dying hair, tattoos, body piercings, or any of the other things that are not "natural", like wearing clothing.

Had these people chosen to exercise the presumably good brains with which Life has gifted them, they would have adopted the posture that says, "yeah, I'm not normal - so WHAT? What is it your point?", putting the ball right back into the court of their antagonist. But instead, they chose to adopt the defensive posture, as if their choice needed defending. Are you a free man or are you a chattel-dog? If the former, then you apologize to nobody for your rightful choices. If the latter, well... then you take on the qualities of the average example of your ilk, as found today in common observation; you take on at least some of the characteristics of the so-called "liberal". 

Playing another man's game is dicey business at best and a terrible trap at worst. All manner of groups have fallen for it, whether it's gays, women, blacks, and so on down a long line of "victim" groups. They have danced to the devil's music and now are in hock up to their eyeballs, with no apparent (to them) way out. They are now utterly vested in the positions they have held for a lifetime and either do not know how to get away or see no problems and refuse to divest themselves of mental landscapes that bring far more harm to oneself than benefit.  

The level of "social engineering" that goes on anymore is staggering, and people appear to be going for it in ever growing proportion and degree. If this does not frighten, then I must conclude that such a person is gone off the deep end.

Liberalism, just as with typical conservatism, ignores reality in favor of a feel-good fantasy of how the world works.  I will state clearly that liberals are far more guilty of this than conservatives, on the average, but both are "guilty enough".  The fundamentally free nature of men is ignored on a wholesale basis in favor of fantasy visions of a "perfect world" where everybody behaves themselves "properly" at all times and all is bunnies and light.  This is patently absurd, and dangerously unsound, particularly in an age of such technological advance that small cadres of men are capable of visiting untold and vast destruction upon entire nations with mere keystrokes and mouse-clicks.  It used to be a lot of work to butcher and entire city.  Not anymore.

And be clear once again that the "liberal" and the "conservative" are largely identical.  In the specifics, for example, the liberal would see vast harms put upon people who "hate on" those groups whom they deem somehow sacred, such as homosexual, blacks, and other such populations.  Yet they hypocritically "hate on" those who do that for which they have complaints.  The "conservative" would often see those using cannabis tossed into prison cells, or those purchasing the services of a prostitute.  Each is guilty enough.

What, then, is the upshot of all this?  Firstly, the recognition that modern progressive liberalism is indeed a disease of the mind whose ultimate result will be nothing good for the race of men.  Running amok through life with little requirement to adhere to a rational standard of behavior is not likely to end well for humanity.  Secondly, it should be recognized that liberalism as currently common among people is manipulation on a grand scale by forces not readily visible to the man who wishes not to see them.  This does not perforce imply a vast and evil conspiracy emanating from a secretive cabal - though that possibility should not be dismissed out of hand.  It may be nothing more than common human proclivity having taken a very wrong turn someplace along the line.  Whatever the cause and source, we do know that it is in fact a very wrong turn and that if we as a technologically advancing race are to survive our own progress, which places vast levers into the hands of individuals, we had better get ourselves squared up with practical reality.  I see no other way that we as a race of beings will survive ourselves and the insane stupidities that so many of us embrace as truth and virtue.

Likewise, the "conservative" seems often to think that his view of the world is the only one valid and that all men should be FORCED to toe his line.

Both are grossly misguided.

Liberalism will be a great factor in the extinction of the human race if we do not walk away from it, for it denies men their fundamental rights with ever growing viciousness and callous disregard for the very people it purports to serve.  Serving, what, exactly?  Common mistaken distortions of "conservatism", which vastly less dangerous in the immediate sense, is equally harmful in the longer run because it, too, unjustly corrals men and does so with no demonstrable authority beyond that of the gun.

We, the race of men, arguably need freedom now more than at any time in the past.  There IS an objectively derived, complete, and correct set of basic rules for determining one's envelope of prerogatives as a free man.  They can be found at this link: The Canon of Proper Human Relations   It is a work still somewhat in progress, but I submit that it is a very good start.  Please take the time to read it, for it is short and simply written in language that does not highly tax one's thoughts.  The basics of right and wrong should never do that.

Finally, let me be clear that nowhere here do I endeavor to disparage anyone, whether liberal, conservative, or any other labeling one might choose.  It is my sole intention to bring to light that which many appear to miss, that forest for the trees. The noise to signal ratio is VERY high these days.  No wonder people generally fail to see that which stares them directly in the eyes.  But one can learn to step back, to a higher plane so to speak, and attain a broader and more informationally sound view of things.  The first step is to realize that there is in fact a problem.  It is my hope that those of you of a "liberal" bent will take no umbrage; that you will consider with some cool of mind that which I have written here with the understanding that it is my objective to help you see beyond the trappings - the noises - of your political philosophy.

With that, I bid you all adieu.  

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Good Cop, Bad Cop?

Today we hear much talk about how cops are not all bad.  I believe that to be untrue.  I do in fact believe that there can be no such thing as a "good cop".  This does not imply that all police are evil people.  However, all those people assume evil roles every day when they don their uniform, badges, guns, and the imprimatur of the "state" to go forth and enforce laws that run contrary to the rights of men.

When a man becomes a police officer, he is supposed to swear an oath to the Constitution, which is in effect an oath to all of us.  It is an oath to we, the People.  Those newly-sworn cops then proceed to go forth into the world and uphold laws that stand in violent conflict with the natural and unalienable rights of men.

Who says a man cannot park himself on the courthouse steps and fire up a spliff?  Who says one cannot engage the services of a prostitute?  Who says that any of these statutes constitute actual law?  By what authority are we bound to obey these mostly arbitrary edicts, at the ends of the guns of police and sheriffs?  To date I have found no basis for it.  Thus far, all I see is a raft of fellow citizens who act in compliance with orders such that they daily violate their sworn oaths of duty to we, the people whom they ostensibly serve.

That fact renders all cops "bad", as such.  This is not to deny them what credit they may merit for getting cats out of trees and helping little old ladies cross the streets.  But just as the NAZIs were hung by their necks until dead because "we were just following orders" did not cut the muster, so it is with police who similarly rape, murder, and maim their fellows when they claim they are "only doing [their] job[s]".

This is a terrible sickness afoot in the world with Americans enjoying no immunity. and we as a people used to recognize it as such.  There was a time where we at least showed the decency to speak out against such behaviors.  Not so much anymore; certainly not to the extent that was once evident.  But that appears to be changing.  As police and sheriffs murder their way along ever broadening patches of the American landscape, people are beginning to rouse from their consumerist stupors, asking themselves, "what is going on here?".  It is perhaps a shame that things had to come to this sorry pass before people began noticing, but I suppose it is better late than never.

You cannot be good so long as you comply with a duty that calls upon you to violate the rights of your fellows.  It doesn't matter whom you rescue, what bad guys you apprehend, or any of the other "good" things that you may do because the moment you enforce a single mandate that violates the rights of even the least among us, you have become an evil thing, having committed a felonious act against another, thereby contaminating all that may once have been good about you with the taint of true evil.

A man cannot serve two masters and it is clear to whom the cops kowtow. Therefore, regardless of how good the "man", he becomes something bad when he chooses to be "cop". There are no two ways about this.

Until next time, please accept my best regards.

A New Scheme For The Truer Separation And Circumscription Of Powers In Law Enforcement.

I stand by my contention that there is no place for police in a free land.  It is not my intention to go into the argument here, but rather to address a change in the order of things that would improve our current circumstance immeasurably, assuming the retention of such enforcement instruments due to the absence of the political will, guts, and wisdom to move contrariwise.  What I intend here is an architectural plan regarding separation and gross circumscription of practicing police powers.  It is my aim to contrive harnesses by which to restrain the now out-of-control elements of American "government" that have eroded our freedoms to their current threadbare state.  The so-called "law enforcement" arm of American government is the first and last line instrument of the tyrants' hands and those hands must be bound if we as a nation are to survive as such and hold any meaningful hope of attaining something approaching even the fringes of freedom.

As things currently stand, the United States teeters on the brink of becoming an officially fascist state, what with all the talk of Trans-Pacific Partnerships and all.  In the event that that terrible agreement becomes our political reality and as with every other foist that belabors our liberties as stone yokes, police and sheriffs will serve as the front-line instruments of enforcement.  That can in no possible way or capacity be deemed as good.

It is now almost impossible to credibly argue against the assessment that police pose a very serious problem in the United States. As loused-up as Europe is, the police there are generally far more under control in terms of how they discharge their duties. In addition, the definition of their duties appears to differ fundamentally in certain respects from those of cops in America.

I would propose that all American law enforcement forces have their wings clipped such that there would no longer be police departments as we have come to know and love them, but would rather be re-tasked as Departments of Criminal Investigations. As such, their ONLY function would be to investigate crimes that have already been committed. There would be no issues of "probable cause", proactive enforcement, and all the rest of the great gems of contemporary law enforcement. That function would rightly fall upon the shoulders of the common man.

Investigators would be debarred the possession of arms while on duty so as not to be lead into the apparently irresistible temptation to usurp and violate. Investigators would possess NO POWER TO ARREST unless they were witnessing an actual felonious act in progress, the same as any other individual. They would investigate allegations, gather evidence, write their reports, and file their reports with the Grand Jury. The GJ would then, decide whether to indict, in which case they draft an appropriate warrant, which would then pass to the sheriff for execution. Note how the judge is left out of this loop.  In this world, the sheriff would be allowed ZERO full-time paid deputies, though he might have some administrative officers who would be utterly and sternly debarred from assisting in the execution of any warrant. The sheriff would be utterly dependent upon the good will of his constituent citizens to volunteer for posse duty pursuant to execution of the writ. Upon formation, the posse would be sworn-in with their oath to uphold, defend, and abide by the Constitution. In addition, every criminal investigator and posse member would be required to reaffirm his oath daily before going on duty such that he would be literally prevented from assuming any position until such time as he swore his oath that day.  Furthermore, all posse duty would be unpaid.

This arrangement would separate the functions, the powers of investigations and enforcement, which I believe we as a nation sorely need. This has the effect of compartmentalizing knowledge, function, and mental investment, thereby greatly circumscribing not only the actual authority, but the sense of authority such that they do not come to assume powers greater than intended. One-time "cops" are stripped of the powers which they now so habitually, deeply, and broadly abuse. There would be no career sheriff's deputies, but only sworn volunteers whose prerogatives as such would be sternly limited to the narrowly defined parameters of the role.

It is my belief that this would effectively de-ball the respective institutions to the extent that the currently rampant and wild abuses we experience daily would be almost completely curtailed without diminishing the intended capacities of the respective offices. It would remove any vested mental and emotional interests from the chains of procedure. If an investigator puts much mental/emotional/physical investment in a case, allowing him to serve on the enforcement side runs the risk of his acting out due to that investment. But if he hands his report to the separate GJ, they are able to approach the case in question with greater detachment. They review the evidence and in the "go" cases, issue warrants which are handed over to the "naive" sheriff who convenes a posse and executes with no emotional investment, save perhaps some adrenalin. Mental compartmentalization leads to narrower function and a far greater ability to control behavior that is today completely out of control.

People would be allowed to volunteer for posse duty, say, no more than two non-consecutive months per year. As with investigators, they would re-swear their oaths every time they are called to duty or every day, whichever is more frequent.

This needs to become the New American Reality because, as things currently stand, we as a people are headed for imminent disaster.

I would be most interested in seeing your thoughts on this.

As always and until next time, please accept my fondest regards.

Electronic Currency: Economic Wildcard For Modern Times.

For several years there has been a tug of war in economic circles between the dominant Keynesian economists and those of the "Austrian" school.

More recently, there has been some question by the conventional economists to the Austrians: if the "printing" of so much "money" is supposed to lead to hyperinflation and its attendant economic catastrophe, why then in the wake of all these trillions of dollars that have been dumped into the economy, has it not happened?  Why are we still afloat, rather than having tea at the bottom of the economic ocean?

I believe there is a very good reason for it, and it the answer is not that the Austrians were wrong, but rather because at the time their theories were formulated in the earlier part of the twentieth century, there was one thing missing that today pervades the world economy: electronic currency.

Back in the olden days, the king would mint his coin and by whatever means it would find its way into the economy.  Once released, the king lost much of his control over it.  He could and often did make decrees making it a crime to do this or that with "his" money, but at the end of the day, people were going to do what they would, and for the most part the king was powerless to do anything about it, save in very specific cases.

The same can be said of paper monies of later times.  Once the national mint released its bills into circulation, it had in some ways little to no control over it.  For the most part, once a bill was out there, it was out there.

Fast-forward a few decades to the latter half of the twentieth century as we find something new that had never before existed.  The advent of the digital computer enabled a novel implementation of balance-sheet entries from paper to digital storage.  This in itself was insufficient, but once computer networking passed a threshold of capability and ubiquity, a fundamental shift occurred in terms of the king's ability to exercise far greater control over the currency assets released into the general economy.

Electronic currency, as it now exists in our daily lives, provides the king two capabilities in far greater measure now than ever before.  Firstly, it allows the king to know exactly who has what to a degree the kings of old could never have imagined possible.  And secondly, it enables the king to take back that which he gave.

Banking laws are many, and often very strict.  Part of the requirements placed upon those institutions that wish to do business as banks is that they must abide by the various rules for the maintenance and reporting of their assets, both for the purposes of taxes, audits, and the provision of information on the accounts of its customers.  With the right authorization, whether it be a warrant or some other rule to which the bank agrees upon becoming licensed to be a bank, any information on any account must be handed over to the requesting agency.  There is very little wiggle room for denying such requests.  If an FBI agent shows up a Chase Bank with a warrant for all account information relating to John Doe, the bank must provide it.  That information may be extensive, including balance information, transfers, and even purchasing information if the customer is the holder of a credit card issued by that bank.

This brand of access allows anyone in the right position of authority to gather much information on a given individual's financial activities and, by extension, others as well.

The capability in which we are mostly interested, however, is the ability to directly access accounts and alter their balances on command.  The significance of this can barely be over-stated.  Electronic records in conjunction with sophisticated networking allows someone in the position of authority to readily locate most, if not all, of the accounts attached or otherwise associated with a given individual.  Once identified, in purely technical terms it becomes a matter of a few keystrokes and the balance of any account can then be altered, whether outright or through transfer of funds from one place to another.

The power of this is absolutely enormous, both in political and economic terms.  A few short  years ago, for example, the island of Cyprus decided it was going to give every account in every bank there a haircut to the tune of ten percent.  In a matter of a single weekend, the government ordered all banks to close their doors.  Once secured from those pests whose property the odious government of that unfortunate nation sought to swindle, it was a mere arithmetic matter of examining the balances of each account, calculating the 10% and electronically transferring it to their coffers.

So what then is the significance of this in the context of hyperinflation and economic catastrophe?  It is plainly this: a government is now technically capable of pulling money out of circulation very rapidly, efficiently, and easily.  We shall shortly see why this is a game changer.

In times past, once the printed monies were released into the economy, repatriating them to the national treasury was a non-trivial, some would say mainly impossible, endeavor.  If the king prints and releases "too much" money,  the excessive cash artificially increases demand because people often spend excess money.  As demand rises, so follow the prices.  If the king errs by releasing even more money to address the rising prices, prices only rise even more.  At some point if the king does not gain possession of himself and stop releasing more cash into the economy, the rate of inflation then begins an asymptotic rise.   This is what is commonly referred to as "hyperinflation", at which point the king finds himself between a rock and a hard place.  If he cuts off the money supply on Monday morning, the economy will collapse to one degree or another by, say, Monday afternoon.

But the king may not want to suffer the consequences of his foolhardy decision.  Therefore, like all good intending but hopelessly misguided tyrants, he attempts to delay the inevitable in the hope that things will stabilize if given some time.  This, however, is unlikely, meaning that all he is accomplishing is the delay of the inevitable, all the while digging the economy into an ever deepening pit.

At some point the presses literally cannot keep pace with the demand for cash in response to the rapidly rising prices.  That is when the train goes completely off the rails and the economy crashes, often with very unpleasant results for many.

Because he was unable to recall the cash with any practicability, the king went the opposite way and drove even more into the economy in the false hope that it would somehow all work out.  Wrong-0.

But today the situation is fundamentally different.  If the king issues too much cash, he can simply order it recalled.  Forget the various legalities that might, under normal circumstances, tie the king's hands, preventing him from being able to recall currency without the benefit of due process for those from whom the cash is to be taken.  In an "emergency" those obstacles to unilateral action are often swept away at a moment's notice, paving the way for immediate and direct action.

Unlike in olden times where the practical reality of repatriating cash to the national treasury would have entailed real men visiting every bank and home in the land, computer technology allows accounts to be instantly identified, accessed, and altered to whatever degree the issuing authority deems fit.

Today if it is deemed that the amount of currency in the system is too great, by way of emergency declaration the issuing authority now holds the technical ability to identify specific repositories of such resources and instantly transfer them back to treasury hands.

Consider the TARP bailouts of 2008-2010, as well as the others.  Literally trillions of dollars were pumped into the global economy.  At those volumes there ought to have resulted an episode of hyperinflation.  While the inflation has indeed been high, it is nowhere near to qualifying as hyperinflation.  Why?  Have all the economists of the past 100 years all been wrong?  Well, no but also yes.  Not wrong in the sense that had those cash resources been actual printed paper, hyperinflation would almost certainly have occurred by now.  Wrong in the sense that what should have happened didn't, but that was because of the nature of electronic currency.

It is not inconceivable that those who received TARP payments, many of whom remain unknown to the general public, were given those funds on conditions.   One of those conditions may have been that once received, the transferees were not to do anything with those funds for some specific period, or perhaps not until given the green light.  It may seem unreasonable, but consider the alternative of losing your shirt with no recourse, save to go out of business.  All of a sudden such conditions do not seem so bad after all.

Electronic currency allows us to inject as much as we want, created out of thin air.  If the infusion proves too great, movement of some or all of those funds can be restricted, completely stopped, and the currency even withdrawn from  "service".

This capability alters the economic game fundamentally.  It also places frightening power into the hands of a very few men who now have to ability to crash any economy on the planet within a day or two.

As we plainly see, our advancing technologies have quietly ushered us across an invisible threshold into an age where at least some of the old rules may not necessarily apply anymore.  It remains to be seen how the landscape of these new technological realities unfold for us.  Something new is afoot, but do we have what it takes to keep it under control.  Perhaps more importantly, can we trust the people wielding this immense power?

As always and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Canon of Proper Human Relations

What is the right way to live amongst one's fellows?  What are the behaviors in which men are entitled to engage and which are those rightly prohibited or otherwise restricted?  To answer these questions, we must know how to make the determination.  Equally importantly, we must have a way of knowing that the means by which we arrive at our assessments reliably produces the correct result when properly applied.

These are questions with which human beings have been wrestling for an age, and yet it seems we never get any closer to the truth, judging by some of the practical choices we routinely make pursuant to the ostensible goal of living properly among and amid our fellows.  Is this because the answers are too difficult for us to understand?  I say no.  The answers are surprisingly simple and, in fact, arrived upon through the most direct and intuitively obvious logic imaginable.

What is difficult, then, is neither the answers nor the path to the answers, but rather the acceptance of some or all of the truths they carry.  The fact is that these simple answers often lead one to results that they find unpalatable, which then impels them to cast about for another, more amiable "truth"; one that does not chafe, but rather satisfies one's perhaps unstated, tacit, and even subconscious desires.  It is our human bent toward the corruption of wanting something for nothing that tends to drive us toward other corruptions.  Generally speaking, people want a state of existence that enjoys all the benefits of freedom without having to bear any of the costs of being free.  We want that which cannot exist: the proverbial "free lunch".

It is sad to observe the seemingly overwhelming proclivity of the average human creature to resort to all manner of mental gymnastics to justify the wanting of what they want, no matter how obviously ridiculous or even criminal those things may be, not to mention their efforts in attaining them.  We could speculate endlessly as to why so many people, I am sure a very vast majority, behave in this manner. I am not, however, interested in such expenditures of effort at this time.  Rather, I am interested in uncovering those simple and obvious truths that define the metes and bounds of proper human relations.  I will add that those principles so very happily coincide with the inherent freedom of each and every human individual.

Beginning at the beginning, there must be a postulate - an assumption - whose innate truth is so obvious as to be acceptable to all sane, rational, and honest men.  Likewise, its self-evident nature must be such that those refusing to accept it are put to the sword of logic such that they are unable to credibly support their refusal of such a base assumption.  This postulate, once accepted, serves as the basis for all that follows, constituting that which is built upon its bedrock.

As such, the postulate must be not only intuitively self-evident, but irreducible such that it cannot be validly further subdivided, conceptually.  It must in itself represent a conceptually atomic primitive.  The notion to which we will refer to as the Cardinal Postulate (CP) and which I would like to now offer as the basis of a set of principles of proper human relations is as follows:

"All men are equally endowed with life"

At first blush this may seem odd, even silly, or of questionable relevance.  This is perhaps precisely because it is so absurdly obvious as to not merit mention.  After all, is this not a deeply tacit assumption held by most of us - so deep in fact that we may never even have given it a thought until just now having read it for the first time?  That is the precise quality for which one should always seek when establishing a foundational assumption upon which to base a line of reasoning.  It is especially true of those philosophical treatises, the tenets of which purport as mandates imposed upon free men.  Such fiats must be based upon foundational assertions that are precisely so obvious that no man deemed to be in his right mind could possibly reject them, the burden to which he would be put in supporting his rejection being perforce monumental in order that the correctness of the requirement may be relied upon with supreme confidence.

From this simple, self-evident observation, one may now proceed to derive the sequiturs that issue therefrom.

It helps to note specifically that one is either alive or not alive.  It is of no import as to the character of one's specific state of being alive at any given moment with respect to the question of whether the person in question is, in fact, alive.  It is useless to speak of degrees of being alive, though people are in the unfortunate habit of thinking in such terms.  For example, one might say of a man clinging to life in the wake of a terrible automobile crash that he is "barely alive".  While emotionally compelling, in point of fact the degree to which the man is alive is not really relevant to the question of whether he is alive.  He is, and remains so until he dies, regardless of the quality of the life.  In other words, life is life and all life is equivalent as life.

To further beat that dead horse, consider that man barely clinging to life in the context of the Law.  Were you to unplug his life-sustaining devices, you would almost certainly be charged with murder.  A defense of "well, he was only barely alive" as justification for your act would not be likely to sway a jury to acquit you of the charge.  Even if only tacitly held, the members of that jury nonetheless would likely have a deep and very powerful sense that regardless of the man's condition, and perhaps even because of it, you had no right to unplug him such that he then expired.  And based on that profoundly felt sense of life, you would be then and thereby convicted.

It is here is that things become interesting.  The status of being alive is bivalent.  One is alive, or he is not.  If one is alive, his status as such is perfectly equal with that of all other men.  This is what it means to be "equal" in philosophical terms.  Equality is sameness, and in terms of our each being alive, we humans are precisely the same as every other human.  From that point on, each individual begins to rapidly depart from his fellows in terms of the specific qualities of his life, which are largely the everyday characteristics of the individual in all of its manifestations.  It is this distinction between the most fundamental fact of being alive and the superimposed characteristics of that life that must be understood in order to come to clear apprehension of the nature of men and of the proper order of their interrelations.

There is a fundamental difference between raw, undifferentiated life and the characteristics a given life may assume.  Some of us are male, others female.  Some have light skin tone, others dark.  Some are tall, some short.  Some like vanilla ice cream, others chocolate.  But in my opinion, nobody in their right mind likes strawberry.  As you can see, these qualities, characteristics, and preferences are all a little different, individual to individual.

Let it be also pointed out that the ways in which any given human being regards a specific "quality" or "characteristic" of a life in question is often determined by the various cultural influences that shape one's perceptions of the observed attributes.  What for one man may appear a wondrous quality  in life for another may be ultimately displeasing, perhaps even hateful, such as strawberry ice cream.  There is no single standard of judgment for individual preferences, but there is an objective standard for judging whether human life exists in a specific case.

Let us briefly summarize our findings thus far.

Life is life, regardless of its shape, flavor, and other specific features.  Poor or wealthy, tall or short, handsome or homely, healthy or sickly, in all such cases one is alive and that status of being alive is perfectly equal to that of every other individual.  As such, all lives are equal though they may manifest different outward characteristics.  Therefore, all lives merit equal respect as lives regardless of the differing superimposed attributes to be found with each individual.

This may seem as the splitting of semantic hairs, but in fact the idea is important and should be understood by all people because if we are all equally alive then our lives are, in sé, perfectly equivalent between any and all individuals.  This means that one life as a life in sé is neither inferior nor superior to that of any other in any true sense when such comparative assertions are subjected to the withering light of competent analysis.  If one's status as being alive is perfectly equal to every other's, those statuses must therefore be treated as perfectly equal.  After all, upon what basis would another standard of less-than-equal regard be justifiable?

From the Cardinal postulate follow a small body of consequents that include principles and their corollaries.  Let us now examine them directly.

This is what we have thus far:


Cardinal Postulate:

0 - All men are equally endowed with life.

For the time being, let us assume the truth of the CP.  Demonstrations shall come at a later date.

Because all men are so endowed, we find the Prime Corollaries:

0.1 - All men hold equal claims to life
0.2 - No man's claim to life is superior or inferior to that of another
0.3 - A man is born the sole owner of his life, that life being his First Property.

 

The equal rights of men imply the Cardinal Principle:

1 - All men are equal in their authority with respect to one another.

From this, the Fourth Corollary:

1.1 - All men are free with respect to one another

By virtue of the equal authority that the universally equal claim to life bestows upon and between all men, we now have basis for the Cardinal Proscription:

-1 - No man may trespass upon or otherwise violate the rightful claims of another.

From these, the following derive and are sustained:


Primary Derivatives:

Absolute Nature Of Human Rights With Respect to the Cardinal Postulate et seq.

2 - The fundamental nature of a Human Right is that of a claim to property.

2.1 - A man's right is just and valid if and only if it does not violate the Cardinal Proscription.

2.2 - The Just and Valid Rights of men are absolute because there exists no valid basis for denying them, all else equal.

Relative Nature Of Rights Between Men

3 - The rights of all men have equal effect, as such, between them.

3.1 - Rights are not additive in effect and valid moral power.  Taken in groups, the rightful validity and power of the rights of men do not inherently exceed those of the individual man, regardless of size, composition, or purport of such groups.

3.2 - The just and valid will of a single man may countervail that of any number of others, taken individually or as a group, where the will of the group would constitute a violation of the individual man's rights.


Human Rights Are Property Rights

4.1 - A man is the sole owner and proprietor of his own life, which constitutes his First Property

4.2 - All men are free to acquire property unto their possession to the degree that rightful acts may provide.

4.3 - The licit acquisition of property establishes a just and valid claim, or "right" to that property.
4.4 - All men are free to keep, use, and dispose of their rightful property as they see fit.
4.5 - No man may assert or exercise a property right over a Free Man without the other's free, perfect, informed, and explicit consent.
4.6 - All men hold the absolute right and authority to defend their rights against trespass and other violations.
4.7 - No man or group thereof may act against the rightful acts of another.

The Right to Contracts and Consensual Agreements

6.1 - All Free Men retain the right to enter into contracts and other agreements with one another, singly and severally.


Crimes and Criminality

7.1 - Any Man violating the Cardinal Proscription where an articulated and demonstrable loss to another is proven is guilty of having committed a Crime.
7.2 - Any Man having committed a Crime loses his status as a Free Man and assumes that of Criminal until such time as he has made his victim whole and paid whatever other debts have been assessed for his crime.
7.3 - Criminals may forfeit some or all of their rights including proprietorship of his own life.

This methinks is the Canon, more or less. It may require tuning, but I do believe that what we have here has more or less captured the essence of what it means to live properly among one's fellows.

I invite and challenge anyone and everyone to examine it and attempt to punch holes in the logic it employs and the truth is conveys.

We have described the fundamental nature of men's rights and how they relate one to the other. We have captured the single circumscription that exists to limit men's prerogatives and what it means in the most general terms when they violate those limits.

The rest, so far as I can tell, are matters of a secondary and perhaps changeable nature addressing the proper formal responses to criminal acts.  Once codified, I do believe that the entire and correct basis for all human Law will have been established in a form that has perhaps never been before presented to the world.

Please do give this some thought. Play with it; take it apart; try to drill holes in it, smash it even.  It is the only way to better ensure that what one has at hand is what he thinks it is, and is not something else.

Thanks for you time, and in advance for any thoughts you may share.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Grand jury: No criminal charges in raid that injured toddler in Habersham County, GA

Consider the following excerpt from a news article:

In their 15-page presentment, the grand jury found no cause for criminal charges against the any deputies involved in the botched SWAT raid. but they had plenty to say about the investigation.

The jury called it “sloppy and hurried” and “not in accordance with best practices.” The grand jury said while they want law enforcement to pursue drug dealers “the zeal to hold them accountable must not override cautious and patient judgment.”

They went on to say “there should be no such thing as an emergency drug investigation.”

A sheriff’s task force said they had a witness to drug sales at the home and expected to find a known drug dealer inside. They obtained a no-knock warrant. Instead, they encountered the child and his parents sleeping just beyond this door.

To that point, the grand jury recommended “that every effort should be made in determining presence of children.”

“What stood out to me is how hard they worked and struggled,” said District Attorney Brian Rickman.

Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh asked Rickman, “A lot of people have said throughout this that if a flash bang, a grenade, exploded inside a child’s crib, something went wrong. A lot of people were hoping that someone would be held accountable.”

Rickman said, “To answer the question that’s absolutely true. I think what people have to be careful about -- there’s a difference in criminal responsibility versus, of course there will be a civil lawsuit, but also some of the personal accountability.

There is still an ongoing criminal investigation with the U.S. Attorney's Office.

The grand jury wants their findings read to the entire Georgia Assembly. They believe the tragedy that happened in Habersham County could happen to any community and they don't want any other children hurt.

The family’s spokesman said the parents are distraught and not satisfied. The spokesman said they will likely move forward with civil suit. They plan a news conference Tuesday to discuss the future plans in more detail.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

And yet there remain those who maintain the grand jury system as the best tool for settling issues of justice. It requires a very special brand of blind to hold this position in the face of the endless parade of travesties such as this. That parade serves only to prove to me that there is no formal system of governance upon which one may rely in order to best ensure the freedoms and rights of one and all. ANYTHING can be perverted.

I recently watched "The Stand" and in the third episode the "Abagail" [sic] character reams the people of the "Free Zone", warning them away from their "central committee" as being nothing more than the misguided attempt to bring back to life the same old shackles from which the plague had freed the survivors. It is a frightful thing to witness the fearful childishness of "adults" as they cling to that which is familiar, and therefore comfortable. Just look at the Russians, some years after the collapse of the Soviet Union - they were clamoring to return to the "good old days". Those were not adults, but idiot children in grown-up bodies. What real adult would ever wish for a return to the fear, privation, lack of basic freedoms, ad openly stupid tyranny? But for those imbeciles that was all just dandy so long as they got free stuff, enough to wretch their way through the abject misery of their lives. The familiar was comfortable and that is what a great plurality of humanity wants in preference to freedom, true prosperity, and the attendant responsibilities for one's own self. Heaven forbid one be responsible.

We don't need "system". We need attitude and action pursuant thereto. The right attitude. We need the Golden Rule burned indelibly into the hearts of all men, along with the attitude not of tolerance, but of ultimate intolerance of any and all who would violate the Rule. The speak of tolerance as it has devolved in America needs to be amended away from the indiscriminate nonsense into which it has been mangled and back to propriety. What the progressives have succeeded so wildly in accomplishing has been to train the average man's mind away from the habit of adept discrimination in his assessment of what is tolerable vis-à-vis that which is not, and toward a blanket assessment that says, "it's all good". This has proven a wholesale disaster not for America alone, but for the entire world.

What has been carved out of the contemporary application and tacit definition of "tolerance" is precisely the fact that there are things which are not tolerable. The notion exists, but only tacitly and simplistically to address any intolerance - the one and only thing that Theye accept as "intolerable", along with disobedience of one's masters. Intolerance and disobedience are intolerable for Themme and the world has eaten this up like candy such that any courageous and thinking man should quake in his boots at the thought of this frightful turn of the human spirit toward the pitch-black.

We need a return to the sanity of discretion and discernment, which means a return to the habit and acceptance of responsibility for our thoughts, words, and deeds. With that return to responsibility must come the ability to determine that which is intolerable and to deal with such with the stark non-equivocation of men who know right from wrong and assume the responsibility of defending their just titles from all challengers and threats thereto.

Perhaps more than anything else, it has been the individual renunciation of responsibility that has landed the race of men in its current circumstance of very hot water as we, the people of the living world, teeter on a knife's edge of sorrows we can neither comprehend nor accept as real and imminent, awaiting us in the abyss below.

There are those who will way "you cannot take the law into your own hands".

Bollocks.

Remember, we ARE the law. The law is born into each of us and it has been discovered long past. It is up to each of us to rediscover it, to make it our own, and to enforce it with unbending intent such that each man is guaranteed his rightful place in the world, but not a whit more than that of his brothers. All who presume greater right than his fellows must be stopped and either resized to propriety, or removed from the book of life if need be. THAT is the only viable solution, but it takes work and responsibility and in the end we are all faced with making the decision of what is more important to us, our liberties or our trinkets.

Time is here.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.