https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T424sWq1SkE
Be good, be well, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
A Worthwhile Video Presentation
If your freedom is important to you, it behooves you to watch this video VERY carefully and as many times as is necessary to understand every word the good young miss issues, for not a syllable is gratuitous. She is on the money in every respect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T424sWq1SkE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T424sWq1SkE
Sunday, September 6, 2015
"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.
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.
Friday, May 22, 2015
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.
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.
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.
I would be most interested in seeing your thoughts on this.
As always and until next time, please accept my fondest regards.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, April 27, 2015
The Canon of Proper Human Relations
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 putative 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 such that any nominally bright child sees them as a matter of his natural development. On the mean, these proprieties are born into us.
What are difficult, then, are neither the answers nor is the path to the answers, but rather the acceptance of some or all of the truths they carry when they rub against other interests. The fact is that these simple answers often lead one to results that they find unpalatable, which then impels him to cast about for another, more appealing "truth"; one that does not chafe against one's wishes, but rather satisfies one's perhaps unstated, tacit, and even unconscious desires. It is our human bent toward the corruption of wanting that to which we are not entitled that tends to drive us toward other corruptions, such as declaring a given issue or question as being either intractable, or at least monumentally difficult, even though they are actually quite simple and logically intuitive once we accept the displeasing truths that attach to them. And so we arrive at the reality where people want a state of existence that enjoys all the benefits of freedom without having to bear any of the costs and other burdens of being free. Either we want that which cannot exist, the proverbial "free lunch", or we hypocritically wish to deny to others the freedoms which we arrogate to ourselves, often most stridently.
It is sad to observe the seemingly overwhelming proclivity of the average human being 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 the extents to which they will go pursuant to attaining them. We could speculate endlessly as to why so vast a 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 freedoms of each and every human individual.
Beginning at the beginning, there must be a postulate - an assumption - whose innate truth is so blatantly obvious as to be acceptable to all sane, rational, and honest men. Likewise, the self-evident nature of this assumption must be such that those refusing to accept it are instantly put upon with great and immediate strain to credibly support their refusal of such a base assumption. Once accepted, the postulate 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, in any relevantly meaningful way. It must in itself represent a conceptually atomic primitive. This notion, to which we will refer 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 the assertion may seem odd, even silly, and of questionable relevance. This is perhaps precisely because it is so 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 justly 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 wits could possibly reject them. The burden to which one would be put in supporting rejection of the assertion would be so monumental, that the correctness of the requirement may be relied upon as being correct 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. There is, therefore, a meta-postulate of sorts, which we shall call the Meta Postulate: "All life, as life, is perfectly equivalent." While the Meta Postulate applies to human life, it also applies to the lives of fleas, viruses, gophers, eagles, earthworms, and any other living thing one may care to name. So in the context of human relations, there is no specifically differentiating element to be found there that helps us in terms of how humans relate to each other in specific.
But carrying forth into the relevancies of human relations, and working under the tacit assumption of the Meta Postulate, the Cardinal Postulate zeroes in on humanity very specifically, making a correct application of the Meta Postulate in the context of human life. This arrangement may seem a mite arbitrary, for could we not say that the Meta Postulate could as readily be regarded as the Cardinal Postulate? We could, but to my thinking it is better to take that which the Meta Postulate establishes broadly and narrow its context to the population in question: humanity. This way we remain clear in terms of context and avoid irrelevant wanderings, such as the consideration of the lives of influenza viruses.
Therefore, our Cardinal Postulate tacitly carries with it the Meta Postulate, but only so far as it applies to human beings because we are not discussing the lives of hummingbirds.
To further beat the dead horse, consider the man barely clinging to life in the context of the human 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 favorably. Even if only tacitly held, the members of that jury nonetheless would likely have the deep and very powerful sense that regardless of the patient's condition, perhaps even because of it, you had no right to unplug him. This becomes certainly so in the absence of his consent, especially where there remained even so much as a thin-slice hope that he might recover. You would have taken the entirety of his life, not just some remnant scrap. We are alive, or we are not. There is nothing in between.
Based on that profoundly felt sense of life, you would then and thereby be rightly convicted of murder.
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. In the relevant sense, equality here is precise sameness, and in terms of our each being alive, every individual is precisely the same as all others.
From that point on, however, 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 manifold expressions. 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 a 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, this being most clearly exemplified when comparing a human being with a goldfish. Both are alive, and yet a man and a goldfish as a man and as a goldfish, are not the same. Speaking now of humans specifically, 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, and yet we all share the common fundamental characteristic of being alive. Chunks of stone don't enjoy chocolate.
Let it be also pointed out that the ways in which any given human being regards a specific "quality" or "characteristic" of a given life is often determined by the various cultural influences that shape one's perceptions of those attributes. What for one man may appear a wondrous quality, 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 and in that regard, all lives are equal, all outward manifestations that might suggest otherwise notwithstanding. Therefore, all lives merit equal respect when considered solely as lives, regardless of the differing superficialities of those lives in terms of the manifold and seemingly divergent 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 fundamental sense when such comparative assertions are subjected to the withering light of competent analysis. If one's status of being alive is perfectly equal to every other's, those statuses must therefore be regarded and treated as being perfectly equal. After all, upon what would a standard of less-than-equal be justifiably based? Upon what basis could we reasonably say that my life, as life, is inherently superior to yours, or yours mine?
Accepting the Cardinal Postulate settles all issues and leaves us with a refreshing simplicity that is not only intuitively clear and obvious, but rather pleasing in terms of the implications it carries for one and all. On the other hand rejection of the CP opens a vast and literally never ending path of very messy questions that represent the king of all cans of worms precisely because there are no dead-end answers, those which do not lead to more questions whose answers lead to further questions. Rinse and repeat, ad infinitum. Practically speaking, however, we rapidly some to perceive the pattern of similarly dissatisfying answers that leads to more questions in the style of an infinite loop, which in itself is a dead-end answer of sorts; one which leads to the only reasonable conclusion that rejection of the Cardinal Principle is invalid.
From the Cardinal postulate follows a small body of consequents that include principles and their corollaries. Let us now examine them directly.
This is what we have thus far:
Meta Postulate:
There is a fundamental difference between raw, undifferentiated life and the characteristics a given life may assume, this being most clearly exemplified when comparing a human being with a goldfish. Both are alive, and yet a man and a goldfish as a man and as a goldfish, are not the same. Speaking now of humans specifically, 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, and yet we all share the common fundamental characteristic of being alive. Chunks of stone don't enjoy chocolate.
Let it be also pointed out that the ways in which any given human being regards a specific "quality" or "characteristic" of a given life is often determined by the various cultural influences that shape one's perceptions of those attributes. What for one man may appear a wondrous quality, 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 and in that regard, all lives are equal, all outward manifestations that might suggest otherwise notwithstanding. Therefore, all lives merit equal respect when considered solely as lives, regardless of the differing superficialities of those lives in terms of the manifold and seemingly divergent 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 fundamental sense when such comparative assertions are subjected to the withering light of competent analysis. If one's status of being alive is perfectly equal to every other's, those statuses must therefore be regarded and treated as being perfectly equal. After all, upon what would a standard of less-than-equal be justifiably based? Upon what basis could we reasonably say that my life, as life, is inherently superior to yours, or yours mine?
Accepting the Cardinal Postulate settles all issues and leaves us with a refreshing simplicity that is not only intuitively clear and obvious, but rather pleasing in terms of the implications it carries for one and all. On the other hand rejection of the CP opens a vast and literally never ending path of very messy questions that represent the king of all cans of worms precisely because there are no dead-end answers, those which do not lead to more questions whose answers lead to further questions. Rinse and repeat, ad infinitum. Practically speaking, however, we rapidly some to perceive the pattern of similarly dissatisfying answers that leads to more questions in the style of an infinite loop, which in itself is a dead-end answer of sorts; one which leads to the only reasonable conclusion that rejection of the Cardinal Principle is invalid.
From the Cardinal postulate follows a small body of consequents that include principles and their corollaries. Let us now examine them directly.
This is what we have thus far:
Meta Postulate:
00 - All life, as life, is perfectly equal.
Meta Corollaries:
00.1 - No life, as life, is superior to another00.2 - No life, as life, holds a claim to life superior to that of another00.3 - All life, as life, is valid of itself by virtue of its nature00.4 - All life, as life, tends to seek to preserve, edify, and advance its interests, such as they may be00.5 - The advancement of such interests is valid
This applies to all life on the planet, human or otherwise. Life is life, regardless of form.
The human arena brings specifics:
Cardinal Postulate:
This assertion narrows the discussion to humanity to the exclusion of all other forms of life on planet earth, yet the Meta Postulate holds in any event and is carried tacitly forth in the Cardinal Postulate.
0 - All men are equally endowed with life.
This assertion narrows the discussion to humanity to the exclusion of all other forms of life on planet earth, yet the Meta Postulate holds in any event and is carried tacitly forth in the Cardinal Postulate.
Because all men are so endowed, we find the Prime Corollaries:
0.1 - All men hold equal claims to life, regardless of their ability to outwardly express or assert it
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.
0.4 - No man holds an inherent claim upon the life of another
The equal rights of men imply the Cardinal Principle:
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 - Every man is equal in his fundamental rights and authority with respect to every other man.
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 equal fundamental rights of another such that another is caused unjust injury or other damage.
From these, the following derive and are sustained:
Primary Derivatives:
6.0 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.
7.0 Crimes and Criminality
7.1 - Any Free Man having violated the Cardinal Proscription wherein an articulated and demonstrable trespass to another is proven, has failed to govern himself and is thereby guilty of having committed a Crime.
7.2 - Any Free Man having committed a Crime loses his status as a Free Man and assumes that of a Criminal until such time as he has made his victims whole and has paid whatever other debts have been assessed for his crimes, including time of incarceration.
7.3 - A Criminal may forfeit some or all of his rights including proprietorship of his First Property.
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 and amid 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 notions 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, though I would not bet the farm on my speculative assertion.
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 your time, and in advance for any thoughts you may share.
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
Primary Derivatives:
2.0 The Rights of Free Men Are Absolute In Accord With The Cardinal Postulate, its Corollaries, and the Cardinal Proscription
2.1 - All men are free with respect to one another - his right to free praxis
2.2 - No man is inherently beholden to another, save that he respects the Cardinal Proscription - his right to be free from unwelcome interference from others.
2.3 - The fundamental nature of a Human Right is that of a just and valid claim to property.
2.4 - A man's right is just and valid if and only if it does not violate the Cardinal Proscription.
2.5 - The Just and Valid Rights of men are absolute because there exists no valid basis for denying them, all else equal.
3.0 The Nature Of Rights Between Men
3.1 - Normatively, the rights of all men have, as such, equal validity, power, salience, and effect between them.
3.2 - The rights of groups as such do not exist, regardless of size, or composition, any purport by the members of such groups to the contrary notwithstanding. Therefore, rights are not additive in effect, normative power, or moral validity in any way or degree. Therefore...
3.3 - The just and valid will of a single man may neutralize by his own countervail or that of those working on his behalf, that of any number of others, taken individually or in groups, where the will of the group would constitute a violation of the individual man's rights.
3.4 - Men are inherently self-governing entities and as such are responsible for governing themselves
3.5 - Those men who fail to govern themselves, whatever the reason, may be governed by others until the necessary corrections are made and proper self-governance is restored.
4.0 Human Rights Are Property Rights
4.0 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 so long as their acts do not violate the Cardinal Proscription.
4.5 - No man may assert or exercise a property right over another Free Man without the other's free, perfect, informed, and explicit consent.
4.6 - All Free Men hold the absolute authority to defend their rights against trespass and other threats of damage thereto.
4.7 - No man or group thereof may act against the rightful acts of a Free Man, regardless of purport of authority to the contrary.
4.4 - All men are free to keep, use, and dispose of their rightful property as they see fit so long as their acts do not violate the Cardinal Proscription.
4.5 - No man may assert or exercise a property right over another Free Man without the other's free, perfect, informed, and explicit consent.
4.6 - All Free Men hold the absolute authority to defend their rights against trespass and other threats of damage thereto.
4.7 - No man or group thereof may act against the rightful acts of a Free Man, regardless of purport of authority to the contrary.
6.0 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.
7.0 Crimes and Criminality
7.1 - Any Free Man having violated the Cardinal Proscription wherein an articulated and demonstrable trespass to another is proven, has failed to govern himself and is thereby guilty of having committed a Crime.
7.2 - Any Free Man having committed a Crime loses his status as a Free Man and assumes that of a Criminal until such time as he has made his victims whole and has paid whatever other debts have been assessed for his crimes, including time of incarceration.
7.3 - A Criminal may forfeit some or all of his rights including proprietorship of his First Property.
I invite and challenge anyone and everyone to examine it and attempt to punch holes in the logic it employs and the notions 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, though I would not bet the farm on my speculative assertion.
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 your time, and in advance for any thoughts you may share.
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
†Nonetheless, it is always good form to question even that which seems supremely and irrefutably true, just to keep ourselves in good habits of thought and reason, lest we fall into the trap of blind acceptance without giving an "established" truth a good thrashing to confirm that is it, indeed, true.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Grand jury: No criminal charges in raid that injured toddler in Habersham County, GA
Consider the following excerpt from a news article:
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.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
An Arrow Against All Tyrants
'An arrow against all tyrants'
[Richard Overton, 12 October 1646]
Sir,
To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one, as he is himself, so he has a self-propriety, else could he not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive any of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature and of the rules of equity and justice between man and man. Mine and thine cannot be, except this be. No man has power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man's. I may be but an individual, enjoy my self and my self-propriety and may right myself no more than my self, or presume any further; if I do, I am an encroacher and an invader upon another man's right — to which I have no right. For by natural birth all men are equally and alike born to like propriety, liberty and freedom; and as we are delivered of God by the hand of nature into this world, every one with a natural, innate freedom and propriety — as it were writ in the table of every man's heart, never to be obliterated — even so are we to live, everyone equally and alike to enjoy his birthright and privilege; even all whereof God by nature has made him free.
And this by nature everyone's desire aims at and requires; for no man naturally would be befooled of his liberty by his neighbour's craft or enslaved by his neighbour's might. For it is nature's instinct to preserve itself from all things hurtful and obnoxious; and this in nature is granted of all to be most reasonable, equal and just: not to be rooted out of the kind, even of equal duration with the creature. And from this fountain or root all just human powers take their original — not immediately from God (as kings usually plead their prerogative) but mediately by the hand of nature, as from the represented to the representers. For originally God has implanted them in the creature, and from the creature those powers immediately proceed and no further. And no more may be communicated than stands for the better being, weal, or safety thereof. And this is man's prerogative and no further; so much and no more may be given or received thereof: even so much as is conducent to a better being, more safety and freedom, and no more. He that gives more, sins against his own flesh; and he that takes more is thief and robber to his kind — every man by nature being a king, priest and prophet in his own natural circuit and compass, whereof no second may partake but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose natural right and freedom it is.
And thus sir and no otherwise are you instated into your sovereign capacity for the free people of this nation. For their better being, discipline, government, propriety and safety have each of them communicated so much unto you (their chosen ones) of their natural rights and powers, that you might thereby become their absolute commissioners and lawful deputies. But no more: that by contraction of those their several individual communications conferred upon and united in you, you alone might become their own natural, proper, sovereign power, therewith singly and only empowered for their several weals, safeties and freedoms, and no otherwise. For as by nature no man may abuse, beat, torment, or afflict himself, so by nature no man may give that power to another, seeing he may not do it himself; for no more can be communicated from the general than is included in the particulars whereof the general is compounded.
So that such, so deputed, are to the general no otherwise than as a school-master to a particular — to this or that man's family. For as such an one's mastership, ordering and regulating power is but by deputation — and that ad bene placitum[3] and may be removed at the parents' or headmaster's pleasure upon neglect or abuse thereof, and be conferred upon another (no parents ever giving such an absolute unlimited power to such over their children as to do to them as they list, and not to be retracted, controlled, or restrained in their exorbitances) — even so and no otherwise is it with you our deputies in respect of the general. It is in vain for you to think you have power over us to save us or destroy us at your pleasure, to do with us as you list, be it for our weal or be it for our woe, and not be enjoined in mercy to the one or questioned in justice for the other. For the edge of your own arguments against the king in this kind may be turned upon yourselves. For if for the safety of the people he might in equity be opposed by you in his tyrannies, oppressions and cruelties, even so may you by the same rule of right reason be opposed by the people in general in the like cases of destruction and ruin by you upon them; for the safety of the people is the sovereign law,[4] to which all must become subject, and for the which all powers human are ordained by them; for tyranny, oppression and cruelty whatsoever, and in whomsoever, is in itself unnatural, illegal, yea absolutely anti-magisterial; for it is even destructive to all human civil society, and therefore resistible.
Now sir, the commons of this nation, having empowered their body representative (whereof you are one) with their own absolute sovereignty, thereby authoritatively and legally to remove from amongst them all oppressions and tyrannies, oppressors and tyrants — how great soever in name, place, or dignity — and to protect, safeguard and defend them from all such unnatural monsters, vipers and pests, bred of corruption or which are intruded amongst them; and as much as in them lies to prevent all such for the future. And to that end you have been assisted with our lives and fortunes most liberally and freely with most victorious and happy success, whereby your arms are strengthened with our might, that now you may make us all happy within the confines of this nation if you please. And therefore sir, in reason, equity and justice we deserve no less at your hands.
And (sir) let it not seem strange unto you that we are thus bold with you for our own. For by nature we are the sons of Adam, and from him have legitimately derived a natural propriety, right and freedom, which only we require. And how in equity you can deny us we cannot see. It is but the just rights and prerogative of mankind (whereunto the people of England are heirs apparent as well as other nations) which we desire; and sure you will not deny it us, that we may be men and live like men. If you do, it will be as little safe for yourselves and posterity as for us and our posterity. For sir, look: what bondage, thraldom, or tyranny soever you settle upon us, you certainly, or your posterity will taste of the dregs. If by your present policy and (abused) might, you chance to ward it from yourselves in particular, yet your posterity — do what you can — will be liable to the hazard thereof.
And therefore sir we desire your help for your own sakes as well as for ourselves, chiefly for the removal of two most insufferable evils daily encroaching and increasing upon us, portending and threatening inevitable destruction and confusion of yourselves, of us, and of all our posterities: namely the encroachments and usurpations of the House of Lords over the commons' liberties and freedoms, together with the barbarous, inhuman, blood-thirsty desires and endeavors of the Presbyterian clergy.
For the first, namely the exorbitances of the Lords: they are to such an height aspired, that contrary to all precedents, the free commoners of England are imprisoned, fined and condemned by them (their incompetent, illegal, unequal, improper judges) against the express letter of Magna Carta chapter 29 (so often urged and used): that no free man of England 'shall be passed upon, tried, or condemned, but by the lawful judgement of his equals, or by the law of the land', which, as says Sir Edward Coke in his exposition of Magna Carta, p. 28, last line, is tper pares, by his peers, that is, by his equals'. And page 46, branches 1, 2 and 5, in these words:[5]
1. That no man be taken or imprisoned, but per legem terrae, that is by the common law, statute law, or custom of England. For these words, per legem terrae being towards the end of this chapter, do refer to all the pretended matters in this chapter; and this has the first place, because the liberty of a man's person is more precious to him than all the rest that follow; and therefore it is great reason that he should by law be relieved therein, if he be wronged, as hereafter shall be showed.And, chapter 29 of Magna Carta, it is said, 'secundum legem et consuetudinem Angliae' (after the law and custom of England) 'non regis Angliae' (not of the king of England) — 'lest it might be thought to bind the king only, nec populi Angliae, not the people of England; 'but that the law might tend to all, it is said, per legem terra, by the law of the land'.[6]
2. No man shall be disseised, that is, put out of seisin, or dispossessed of his freehold (that is, lands or livelihood) or of his liberties or free customs (that is, of such franchises and freedoms, and free customs, as belong to him by his free birthright) unless it be by the lawful judgement, that is verdict of his equals (that is of men of his own condition) or by the law of the land (that is, to speak it once for all) by the due course and processes of law.
3. No man shall be in any sort destroyed unless it be by the verdict of his equals or according to the law of the land.
'Against this ancient and fundamental law, and in the very face thereof, says Sir Edward Coke, he found an act of the parliament made in the 11 Hen. VII cap. 3: that as well Justices of the Peace, without any finding or presentment by the verdict of twelve men, upon the bare information for the king before them — should have full power and authority by their discretions to hear and determine all offences and contempts committed or done by any person or persons against the form, ordinance, and effect of any statute made and not repealed. By colour of which act, shaking this fundamental law, it is not credible (says he) what horrible oppressions and exactions — to the undoing of infinite numbers of people — were committed by Sir Richard Empson, Knight, and Edmund Dudley, being Justices of the Peace through England; and upon this unjust and injurious act (as commonly in the like cases it falls out) a new office was erected, and they made Masters of the King's Forfeitures.
But at the parliament held in 1 Hen. VIII (cap. 6), this Act of Henry VII is recited, made void and repealed; and the reason thereof is yielded: for that by force of the said act it was manifestly known that many sinister, crafty, and forged informations had been pursued against divers of the king's subjects, to their great damage and unspeakable vexation — a thing most frequent and usual at this day and in these times — the ill success whereof, together with the most fearful end of these great oppressors, should deter others from committing the like and should admonish parliaments in the future, that instead of this ordinary and precious trial per legem terra they bring not in an absolute and partial trial by discretion.[7]
And to this end the judgement upon Simon de Beresford, a commoner, in the fourth year of Edward III's reign, is an excellent precedent for these times (as is to be seen upon record in the Tower in the second roll of parliament held the same year of the said king and delivered into the Chancery by Henry de Edenston, Clerk of the Parliament) — for that the said Simon de Beresford having counselled, aided and assisted Roger de Mortimer to the murder of the father of the said king, the king commanded the earls and barons in the said parliament assembled to give right and lawful judgement unto the said Simon de Beresford. But the earls, barons and peers came before the lord the king in the same parliament and said with one voice that the aforesaid Simon was not their peer or equal, wherefore they were not bound to judge him as a peer of the land. Yet notwithstanding all this, the earls, barons and peers (being over-swayed by the king) did award and adjudge (as judges of parliament, by the assent of the king in the said parliament) that the said Simon as a traitor and enemy of the realm should be hanged and drawn; and execution accordingly was done. But as by the said roll appears, it was by full parliament condemned and adjudged as illegal, and as a precedent not to be drawn into example. The words of the said roll are these, viz.
And it is assented and agreed by our lord the king and all the grandees in full parliament: that albeit the said peers as judges in full parliament took upon them in presence of our lord the king to make and give the said judgement by the assent of the king upon some of them that were not their peers (to wit commoners) by reason of the power of the liege lord, and destruction of him which was so near of the blood royal and the king's father; that therefore the said peers which now are, or the peers which shall be for the time to come, be not bound or charged to give judgement upon others than upon their peers, nor shall do it; but of that for ever be discharged and acquitted; and that the aforesaid judgement now given be not drawn into example or consequent for the time to come, by which the said peers may be charged hereafter to judge others than their peers, being against the law of the land, if any such case happen, which God defend.Agrees with the Record. William Collet.[8]
But notwithstanding all this our lords in parliament take upon them as judges in parliament to pass judgement and sentence (even of themselves) upon the commoners which are not their peers — and that to fining, imprisonment, etc. And this doth not only content them, but they even send forth their armed men, and beset, invade, assault their houses and persons in a warlike manner and take what plunder they please, before so much as any of their pretended, illegal warrants be showed — as was lately upon 11 August 1646 perpetrated against me and mine, which was more than the king himself by his legal prerogative ever could do. For neither by verbal commands or commissions under the Great Seal of England could he ever give any lawful authority to any general, captain or person whatsoever, without legal trial and conviction, forcibly to assault, rob, spoil or imprison any of the free commoners of England. And in case any free commoner by such his illegal commissions, orders or warrants, before they be lawfully convicted, should be assaulted, spoiled, plundered, imprisoned, etc., in such cases his agents and ministers ought to be proceeded against, resisted, apprehended, indicted and condemned (notwithstanding such commissions) as trespassers, thieves, burglars, felons, murderers, both by statute and common law, as is enacted and resolved by Magna Carta, cap. 29; 15 Eliz. 3 stat. 1. caps. 1, 2, 3; 42 Eliz. 5 cap. 1, 13; 28 Eliz. 1 Artic. sup. chartas, cap. 2; 4 Eliz. 3 cap. 4; 5 Eliz. 3 cap. 2; 24 Eliz. 3 cap. 1; 2 Rich II cap. 7; 5 Rich. II cap. 5; 1 Hen V cap. 6; 11 Hen II caps. 1-6; 24 Hen. VIII cap. 5; 21 Jacob. cap. 3.
And if the king himself have not this arbitrary power, much less may his peers or companions, the lords, over the free commons of England. And therefore notwithstanding such illegal censures and warrants either of king or of Lords (no legal conviction being made) the persons invaded and assaulted by such open force of arms may lawfully arm themselves, fortify their houses (which are their castles in the judgement of the law) against them; yea, disarm, beat, wound, repress and kill them in their just necessary defence of their own persons, houses, goods, wives and families, and not be guilty of the least offence — as is expressly resolved by the Statute of 21 Edw. de malefactoribus in parcis; by 24 Hen. VIII cap. 5; 11 Hen. VI cap. 16; 14 Hen. VI cap. 24; 35 Hen. VI cap. 12; Edward IV cap. 6.
And therefore (sir) as even by nature and by the law of the land I was bound, I denied subjection to these lords and their arbitrary creatures thus by open force invading and assaulting my house, person, etc. — no legal conviction preceding, or warrant then shown. But and if they had brought and shown a thousand such warrants, they had all been illegal, antimagisterial and void in this case; for they have no legal power in that kind, no more than the king, but such their actions are utterly condemned and expressly forbidden by the law. Why therefore should you of the representative body sit still and suffer these lords thus to devour both us and our laws?
Be awakened, arise and consider their oppressions and encroachments and stop their lordships in their ambitious career. For they do not cease only here, but they soar higher and higher and now they are become arrogators to themselves of the natural sovereignty the represented have conveyed and issued to their proper representers. They even challenge to themselves the title of the supremest court of judicature in the land — as was claimed by the Lord Hunsden when I was before them, which you may see more at large in a printed letter published under my name, entitled A defiance against all arbitrary usurpations[9] — which challenge of his (I think I may be bold to assert) was a most illegal, anti-parliamentary, audacious presumption, and might better be pleaded and challenged by the king singly than by all those lords in a distinction from the Commons. But it is more than may be granted to the king himself; for the parliament, and the whole kingdom whom it represents, is truly and properly the highest supreme power of all others — yea above the king himself.
And therefore much more above the Lords. For they can question, cancel, disannul and utterly revoke the king's own royal charters, writs, commissions, patents, etc., though ratified with the Great Seal — even against his personal will, as is evident by their late abrogation of sundry patents, commissions, writs, charters, loan, ship-money etc. Yea the body representative have power to enlarge or retract the very prerogative of the king, as the Statute de prerog. Reg.[10] and the parliament roll of 1 Hen. IV, num.[11] 18. doth evidence; and therefore their power is larger and higher than the king's; and if above the king's, much more above the Lords', who are subordinate to the king. And if the king's writs, charters, etc. which entrench upon the weal of the people may be abrogated, nulled and made void by the parliament — the representative body of the land — and his very prerogatives bounded, restrained and limited by them, much more may the orders, warrants, commitments etc. of the Lords, with their usurped prerogatives over the Commons and people of England be restrained, nulled and made void by them. And therefore these lords must needs be inferior to them.
Further, the legislative power is not in the king himself but only in the kingdom and body representative, who has power to make or to abrogate laws, statutes etc. even without the king's consent. For by law he has not a negative voice either in making or reversing, but by his own coronation oath he is sworn to 'grant, fulfil, and defend all rightful laws, which the commons of the realm shall choose, and to strengthen and maintain them after his power';[12] by which clause of the oath is evident that the Commons (not the king or Lords) have power to choose what laws themselves shall judge meetest,[13] and thereto of necessity the king must assent. And this is evident by most of our former kings and parliaments, and especially by the reigns of the Edwards I to IV, Richard II and the Henrys IV to VI. So that it cannot be denied but that the king is subordinate and inferior to the whole kingdom and body representative. Therefore if the king, much more must the lords veil their bonnets to the Commons and may not be esteemed the Upper House, or supreme court of judicature of the land.[14]
So that seeing the sovereign power is not originally in the king, or personally terminated in him, then the king at most can be but chief officer or supreme executioner of the laws, under whom all other legal executioners, their several executions, functions and offices are subordinate; for indeed the representers (in whom that power is inherent and from whence it takes its original) can only make conveyance thereof to their representers, vicegerents or deputies, and cannot possibly further extend it. For so they should go beyond themselves, which is impossible, for ultra posse non est esse: there is no being beyond the power of being. That which goes beyond the substance and shadow of a thing cannot possibly be the thing itself either substantially or virtually; for that which is beyond the representers is not representative, and so not the kingdom's or people's, either so much as in shadow or substance.
Therefore the sovereign power, extending no further than from the represented to the representers[15] — all this kind of sovereignty challenged by any (whether of king, Lords or others) is usurpation, illegitimate and illegal, and none of the kingdom's or people's. Neither are the people thereto obliged. Thus (sir) seeing the sovereign or legislative power is only from the represented to the representers, and cannot possibly legally further extend, the power of the king cannot be legislative but only executive, and he can communicate no more than he has himself. And the sovereign power not being inherent in him, it cannot be conveyed by or derived from him to any; for could he, he would have carried it away with him when he left the parliament. So that his mere prerogative creatures cannot have that which their lord and creator never had, has, or can have: namely, the legislative power. For it is a standing rule in nature, omen simile generas simile: every like begets its like.
And indeed they are as like him as if they were spit out of his mouth. For their proper station will not content them, but they must make incursions and inroads upon the people's rights and freedoms and extend their prerogative patent beyond their master's compass. Indeed all other courts might as well challenge that prerogative of sovereignty, yea better, than this court of lords. But and if any court or courts in this kingdom should arrogate to themselves that dignity to be the supreme court of judicatory of the land, it would be judged no less than high treason, to wit, for an inferior subordinate power to advance and exalt itself above the power of the parliament.
And (sir) the oppressions, usurpations, and miseries from this prerogative head are not the sole cause of our grievance and complaint, but in especial, the most unnatural, tyrannical, blood-thirsty desires and continual endeavours of the clergy against the contrary-minded in matters of conscience — which have been so veiled, gilded and covered over with such various, fair and specious pretences that by the common discernings such wolfish, cannibal, inhuman intents against their neighbours, kindred, friends and countrymen, as is now clearly discovered was little suspected (and less deserved) at their hands. But now I suppose they will scarce hereafter be so hard of belief. For now in plain terms and with open face, the clergy here discover themselves in their kind, and show plainly that inwardly they are no other but ravening wolves, even as roaring lions wanting their prey, going up and down, seeking whom they may devour.[16]
For (sir) it seems these cruel minded men to their brethren, have, by the powerful agitation of Mr Tate and Mr Bacon[17] (two members of the House) procured a most Romish inquisition ordinance[18] to obtain an admission into the House, there to be twice read, and to be referred to a committee, which is of such a nature, if it should be but confirmed, enacted and established, as would draw all the innocent blood of the saints from righteous Abel unto this present upon this nation and fill the land with more martyrdoms, tyrannies, cruelties and oppressions than ever was in the bloody days of Queen Mary, yea or ever before, or since. For I may boldly say that the people of this nation never heard of such a diabolical, murdering, devouring ordinance, order, edict or law in their land as is that.
So that it may be truly said unto England: 'Woe to the inhabitants thereof, for the devil is come down unto you (in the shape of the letter B.) having great wrath, because he knows he has but a short time.'[19] For never before was the like heard of in England. The cruel, villainous, barbarous martyrdoms, murders and butcheries of God's people under the papal and episcopal clergy were not perpetrated or acted by any law so devilish, cruel and inhumane as this. Therefore what may the free people of England expect at the hands of their Presbyterian clergy, who thus discover themselves more fierce and cruel than their fellows? Nothing but hanging, burning, branding, imprisoning, etc. is like to be the reward of the most faithful friends to the kingdom and parliament if the clergy may be the disposers — notwithstanding their constant magnanimity, fidelity and good service both in the field and at home, for them and the state.
But sure this ordinance was never intended to pay the soldiers their arrears. If it be, the Independents are like to have the best share, let them take that for their comfort.[20] But I believe there was more tithe-providence than state-thrift in the matter;[21] for if the Independents, Anabaptists, and Brownists were but sincerely addicted to the due payment of tithes, it would be better to them in this case than two-subsidy-men to acquit them of felony.[22]
For were it not for the loss of their trade and spoiling their custom, an Anabaptist, Brownist, Independent and presbyter were all one to them; then might they without doubt have the mercy of the clergy; then would they not have been entered into their Spanish Inquisition Calendar for absolute felons, or need they have feared the popish soul-murdering, antiChristian Oath of Abjuration,[23] or branding in the left cheek with the letter B — the new Presbyterian mark of the beast: for you see the devil is now again entered amongst us in a new shape, not like an angel of light (as both he and his servants can transform themselves when they please)[24] but even in the shape of the letter B. From the power of which Presbyterian Beelzebub, good Lord deliver us all and let all the people say Amen. Then needed they not to have feared their prisons, their fire and faggot, their gallows and halters, etc. (the strongest texts in all the Presbyterian new model of clergy divinity for the maintenance and reverence of their cloth, and confutation of errors). For he that doth but so much as question that priest-fattening ordinance for tithes, oblations,[25] obventions,[26] etc. doth flatly deny the fundamentals of presbyters, for it was the first stone they laid in their building;[27] and the second stone was the prohibition of all to teach God's word but themselves[28] — and so are ipso facto all felons etc.
By this (sir) you may see what bloody-minded men those of the black presbytery be: what little love, patience, meekness, longsuffering and forbearance they have to their brethren. Neither do they as they would be done to or do to others as is done to them. For they would not be so served themselves of the Independents, neither have the Independents ever sought or desired any such things upon them, but would bear with them in all brotherly love if they would be but contented to live peaceably and neighbourly by them, and not thus to brand, hang, judge and condemn all for felons that are not like themselves. Sure (sir) you cannot take this murdering, bloody, disposition of theirs for the spirit of Christianity; for Christian charity 'suffers long, is kind, envieth not, exalteth not itself, seeketh not its own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things'.[29] But these their desires and endeavors are directly contrary.
Therefore (sir) if you should suffer this bloody inroad of martyrdom, cruelties and tyrannies upon the free commoners of England with whose weal you are betrusted; if you should be so inhumane, undutiful, yea and unnatural unto us, our innocent blood will be upon you, and all the blood of the righteous that shall be shed by this ordinance, and you will be branded to future generations for England's Bloody Parliament.
If you will not think upon us, think upon your posterities. For I cannot suppose that any one of you would have your children hanged in case they should prove Independents, Anabaptists, Brownists — I cannot judge you so unnatural and inhumane to your own children. Therefore (sir) if for our own sakes we shall not be protected, save us for your children's sakes (though you think yourselves secure). For ye may be assured their and our interest is interwoven in one; if we perish, they must not think to escape. And (sir) consider that the cruelties, tyrannies and martyrdoms of the papal and episcopal clergy was one of the greatest instigations to this most unnatural war; and think you, if you settle a worse foundation of cruelty, that future generations will not taste of the dregs of that bitter cup?
Therefore now step in or never, and discharge your duties to God and to us and tell us no longer that 'such motions are not yet seasonable' and we must still wait; for have we not waited on your pleasures many fair seasons and precious occasions and opportunities these six years, even till the halters are ready to be tied to the gallows, and now must we hold our peace and wait till we be all imprisoned, hanged, burnt and confounded?
Blame us not (sir) if we complain against you — speak, write and plead thus — with might and main for our lives, laws and liberties; for they are our earthly summum bonum,[30] wherewith you are chiefly betrusted, and whereof we desire a faithful discharge at your hands in especial. Therefore be not you the men that shall betray the blood of us and our posterities into the hands of those bloody black executioners. For God is just and will avenge our blood at your hands. And let heaven and earth bear witness against you, that for this end, that we might be preserved and restored, we have discharged our duties to you — both of love, fidelity and assistance and in what else ye could demand or devise in all your several needs, necessities and extremities — not thinking our lives, estates, nor anything too precious to sacrifice for you and the kingdom's safety. And shall we now be thus unfaithfully, undutifully and ungratefully rewarded? For shame. Let never such things be spoken, far less recorded, to future generations.
Thus sir, I have so far emboldened myself with you, hoping you will let grievances be uttered (that if God see it good they may be redressed), and give losers leave to speak[31] without offence as I am forced to at this time, not only in the discharge of my duty to myself in particular but to yourselves and to our whole country in general for the present and for our several posterities for the future. And the Lord give you grace to take this timely advice from so mean and unworthy an instrument.
One thing more (sir) I shall be bold to crave at your hands: that you would be pleased to present my appeal, here enclosed, to your honourable House. Perchance the manner of it may beget a disaffection in you or at least a suspicion of disfavour from the House. But howsoever I beseech you that you would make presentation thereof, and if any hazard and danger ensue let it fall upon me; for I have cast up mine accounts. I know the most that it can cost me is but the dissolution of this fading mortality, which once must be dissolved; but after — blessed be God — comes righteous judgement.
Thus (sir) hoping my earnest and fervent desires after the universal freedoms and properties of this nation in general, and especially of the most godly and faithful in their consciences, persons and estates, will be a sufficient excuse with you for this my tedious presumption upon your patience, I shall commit the premises to your deliberate thoughts — and the issue thereof unto God, expecting and praying for His blessing upon all your faithful and honest endeavors in the prosecution thereof.
And rest,
From the most contemptuous gaol of Newgate (the Lords' benediction)
25 September 1646
In bonds for the just rights and freedoms of the commons of England, theirs and your faithful friend and servant, Richard Overton
To the high and mighty states, the knights, citizens and burgesses in parliament assembled (England's legal sovereign power). The humble appeal and supplication of Richard Overton, prisoner in the most contemptible gaol of Newgate.
Humbly shows,
That whereas your petitioner, under the pretence of a criminal fact being in a warlike manner brought before the House of Lords to be tried, and by them put to answer to interrogatories concerning himself — both which your petitioner humbly conceives to be illegal, and contrary to the natural rights, freedoms and properties of the free commoners of England (confirmed to them by Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and the Act for the abolishment of the Star Chamber) — he therefore was emboldened to refuse subjection to the said House both in the one and the other, expressing his resolution before them that he would not infringe the private rights and properties of himself or of any one commoner in particular, or the common rights and properties of this nation in general. For which your petitioner was by them adjudged contemptuous, and by an order from the said House was therefore committed to the gaol of Newgate, where, from the 11 of August 1646 to this present he has lain, and there commanded to be kept till their pleasures shall be further signified (as a copy of the said order hereunto annexed doth declare) which may be perpetual if they please, and may have their wills. For your petitioner humbly conceives as hereby he is made a prisoner to their wills, not to the law — except their wills may be a law.
Wherefore your liege petitioner doth make his humble appeal unto this most sovereign House (as to the highest court of judicatory in the land, wherein all the appeals thereof are to centre and beyond which none can legally be made) humbly craving (both in testimony of his acknowledgement of its legal regality and of his due submission thereunto) that your honours therein assembled would take his cause (and in his, the cause of all the free commoners of England, whom you represent and for whom you sit) into your serious consideration and legal determination, that he may either by the mercy of the law be repossessed of his just liberty and freedoms — and thereby the whole commons of England of theirs, thus unjustly (as he humbly conceives) usurped and invaded by the House of Lords — with due reparations of all such damages to sustained, or elsethat he may undergo what penalty shall in equity by the impartial severity of the law be adjudged against him by this honourable House in case by them he shall be legally found a transgressor herein.
And your petitioner (as in duty bound) shall ever pray, etc.
Die martis 11 Augusti, 1646[32]
It is this day ordered by the Lords in parliament assembled, that Overton, brought before a committee of this House for printing scandalous things against this House,[33] is hereby committed to the prison of Newgate for his high contempt offered to this House and to the said committee by his contemptuous words and gesture, and refusing to answer unto the Speaker. And that the said Overton shall be kept in safe custody by the Keeper of Newgate or his deputy until the pleasure of the House be further signified.
To the Gentleman Usher attending this House, or his deputy, to be delivered to the Keeper of Newgate or his deputy John Brown Cleric. Parl. Examinat. per Ra. Brisco Clericu. de Newgate
Postscript
Sir,Your unseasonable absence from the House, chiefly while Mistress Lilburne's petition[34] should have been read (you having a report to make in her husband's behalf) whereby the hearing thereof was deferred and retarded did possess my mind with strong jealousies and fears of you that you either preferred your own pleasure or private interest before the execution of justice and judgement, or else withdrew yourself on set purpose (through the strong instigation of the Lords) to evade the discharge of your trust to God and to your country. But at your return, understanding that you honestly and faithfully did redeem your absent time, I was dispossessed of those fears and jealousies. So that for my over-hasty censorious esteem of you I humbly crave your excuse, hoping you will rather impute it to the fervency of my faithful zeal to the common good than to any malignant disposition or disaffection in me towards you. Yet (sir) in this my suspicion I was not single, for it was even become a general surmise.
Wherefore (sir) for the awarding[35] your innocency for the future from the tincture of such unjust and calumnious suspicions, be you diligent and faithful, instant in season and out of season;[36] omit no opportunity (though with never so much hazard to your person, estate or family) to discharge the great trust in you reposed, with the rest of your fellow members, for the redemption of your native country from the arbitrary domination and usurpations, either of the House of Lords or any other.
And since by the divine providence of God it has pleased that honourable assembly whereof you are a member to select and sever you out from amongst themselves to be of that committee which they have ordained to receive the commoners' complaints against the House of Lords granted upon the foresaid most honourable petition, be you therefore impartial and just, active and resolute, care neither for favours nor smiles, and be no respecter of persons.[37] Let not the greatest peers in the land be more respected with you than so many old bellows-menders, broom-men, cobblers, tinkers, or chimney-sweepers, who are all equally freeborn with the hugest men and loftiest Anakims in the land.[38] Do nothing for favour of the one or fear of the other. And have a care of the temporary sagacity of the new sect of opportunity politicians, whereof we have got at least two or three too many. For delays and demurrers of justice are of more deceitful and dangerous consequence than the flat and open denial of its execution; for the one keeps in suspense, makes negligent and remiss, the other provokes to speedy defence, makes active and resolute. Therefore be wise, quick, stout and impartial: neither spare, favour, or connive at friend or foe, high or low, rich or poor, lord or commoner.
And let even the saying of the Lord, with which I will close this present discourse, close with your heart and be with you to the death. Leviticus 19:15. 'Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement: thou shall not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.'
12 October 1646
FINIS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)