I was introduced to the notion that all human rights are in fact property rights about a decade ago on an internet forum. At first I balked at the idea, largely because I'd not thought of things in that way prior, but as I allowed time to work its digestive magic it quickly became clear to me that this was indeed true.
Going back to the definition of a "right", which is a "just claim" to something, it becomes clear upon even superficial consideration that human rights are claims to property.
The immediate objection that arose in my mind upon introduction to the assertion, was that regarding life itself. I'd never prior considered my life as property. My life was my own, of course, and yet the idea of it as my property never quite made it to the surface, so to speak. However, it took very little time and consideration to come to the realization that my life was, indeed, my property, even if the thought implied some sort of separation between "me" and "my life". But even if we agree that I am my life, who is to say that I cannot own myself?
My right to my life, which is to say my just claim to myself, implies most forcefully the idea that we own ourselves. Our right to our own lives may be restated as our just claims to our own lives. So put, the notion becomes more clear and more forceful in its own favor.
Now consider the Other - your fellow human being picked from the great wad of humanity at random. If we call him Johnny Q. Public, then I ask you this: all else equal, does Johnny Q hold any claim to your life that is greater than your own? Does he hold any claim whatsoever? The only answer to which I can ever bring myself is "no" in each case. How might Johnny Q make a valid claim to YOUR life that is of greater valence and salience than is your own? What might such a claim look like? I see no way of answering that question in a manner that does not stem from a presumption that is innately and embarrassingly obvious in its arbitrariness.
If it is correct across all possible pairings of human individuals that a man holds the primary and possibly sole just claim to his life vis-à-vis any other man, then we must perforce conclude that no man holds authority over another, once again and ever so importantly, all else equal.
In other words, so long as I have not trespassed against another, there is nothing that I might do that could justify the interference in my affairs by another. Whether I smoke a joint on the courthouse steps, employ the services of a prostitute, buy and sell illicit drugs, go helicopter skiing from eighty-foot high ice cornices, or do any of a nearly endless number of things that might cause me serious injury, it is nobody's business that I so engage myself, much less that men in uniforms and with sidearms place me in a cage for it.
The basic and inherent freedom of the human individual directly implies agorism as the only valid societal foundation. For those not familiar with the term, "agorism" is a philosophy wherein all human interaction between individuals of their majority is undertaken on a strictly voluntary basis. Coercion and other means of force must not be employed in an agorist society, such use exposing the perpetrator to both criminal and civil liability.
For example, the rape of one individual by another would leave the rapist open to criminal charges and liable upon due conviction to the consequences of his actions. Someone stealing a stick of gum from another might be liable for recompense, being given the opportunity to make good. Failure to balance that scale could result in the escalation of charges into the criminal.
As for those who have not attained their majority, they live under a slightly different set of rules whereby their basic rights are maintained, but their individual prerogatives may be validly curtailed for the want of life experience and sufficient physical and mental development.
This brings us to the notion of life itself. One's life is what we shall call his "First Property". It is literally the first thing with which the living entity is endowed. The entity owns itself, leading to the idea that he is autodiathistically entitled to keep and dispose of himself as he may see fit. It is also eminently arguable and seemingly self-evident that one's life is also cardinally "first" in significance. Therefore, "First Property" appears to these eyes to be a truly appropriate moniker and appellation.
Upon one's acceptance of the notion of his First Property, the rest of human rights as those pertaining to the property of the individual come into sharp focus, usually with little to no help.
I own my life, which is to say that I own myself. That which I materially or intellectually come to possess through no demonstrably criminal act also becomes my property. As I stroll along the Gulf Coast, I come upon a sea shell that I find beautiful, I am free to pick it into my physical possession and take it with me wherever I may choose, for as long as I might. The taking having constituted no crime, the shell becomes my exclusive property. Being property, I retain and reserve the right to defend it from destruction or theft at the hands of another, for unless I voluntarily relinquish exclusive ownership of the shell, nobody else may lay claim to it and act upon that claim as if it were valid. In such cases of a counterclaim, we have courts who, in their presumed wisdom and impartiality, will hear the case to be made by one man against the claims of another, to some object or other asset, and render judgment as to whom said asset belongs in exclusive, or partial right.
When one begins to consider themselves and all that surrounds them in terms of property rights, their ideas of how the world properly works becomes far more clear, if deeply altered. Lo and behold the world becomes an easier and better place in which to live.
Be well, and until next time please accept my best wishes.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Covid-19
In this post I will depart a mite from the standard purpose of discussing issues that relate to human liberty directly and touch upon one that could strike deeply, however obliquely, to the same issue.
There is much debate over whether covid19, the so-called "corona virus" of Chinese origin, is a weapon. If you know the basics of that which drives bioweapon design, the confusion should subside at least in good part, though your unease may not.
There are a few holy grails after which the designers seek:
1: long latency (incubation) period. Thus far it is confirmed the latency is at least 14 days with some reports claiming as much as 24. This is quite long, so here we have a mark in favor of this being a weapon, and a rather suspicious one at that. Think of how far and how many people may travel from a single place in two weeks' time in this age of air travel. China with its billion and a half people could have thousands of individuals in every nation on earth in much less time than that. Thousands of highly contagious people could spread the virus to such an extent that there comes with it effectively zero hope of containment on any mass scale.
1a: And what if the actual latency varies between individuals such that in some people the agent incubates at intervals counted in months? Highly varying latency between individuals reduces predictability, which leaves people in a state of relative uncertainty not only as to the nature of the bug, but diagnostically, and also in terms of how human organizations such as "government" tend to respond. The less predictable the bug, the more difficult becomes our decision-making processes, diagnostics, etc. The longer a bug has to spread and the less telltale the outbreak pattern, the better for the wielder of the weapon.
2: Sudden onset. The virus appears to bring on symptoms rather suddenly. Mark the second, if a less convincing one.
3: High contagion during latency. It seems clear that the covi19 virus is at least very contagious during the latency period, if not wildly so. Mark the third.
4: High lethality. Because the numbers reported are not to be trusted, especially those offered later in the reporting cycle, it becomes very difficult to determine the rate of lethality. The possibly less-massaged numbers from January suggest a lethality of around 30-35%, which is very high. Those figures may not be representative of the truth, but then again the same may be said for those reported later on, which suggest far lower danger. Therefore, we remain in limbo on the question of the kill rate. But if perchance lethality is that high and this bug goes pandemic, which it now looks like it may, we are talking about nearly three billion dead at the speculated rate. Let us hope it proves less lethal. We cannot quite issue mark the fourth due almost certainly to the lies of the Chinese government.
5. A vaccine exists. If a vaccine already exists, and thus far there is no way of knowing, then the likelihood that covid19 is a weapon comes to perhaps 95% or greater. No mark in favor due simply to a lack of data.
We see three of five elements are marked in speculative favor of the covid19 virus being the product of willful human endeavor pursuant to the goal of developing a weapon. Sixty percent is not quite damning, but it gives great reason for pause. If this proves to be a weaponized organism, nobody should be surprised.
With this issue arise potentially great implications for human freedom as this is the precise sort of chaotic circumstance that permits for enormous force behind a tyrant's moves to gather ever greater power and false authority into his hands at the cost of individual liberty. In this sense, a pandemic of a highly lethal biological agent is functionally no different than that of a more conventional "terrorist" attack. It is, in fact, far greater a threat for any of several reasons, not the least of which is that the parties responsible always hold some plausible deniability. If there is no positively identified enemy beyond "mother nature", then there is nobody against whom to train one's weapons, further meaning there could possibly be no secure victory against the instrument of one's destruction. This is the brand of chaos that could be employed as the justification for utter usurpation of all power, whether by design from the get-go or by the pure opportunity of happenstance.
The justification of public health and national survival, when couched in the context of a general terror of a deadly plague, stands to meet with near-universal public acceptance. Frighten people sufficiently and they will surrender to you anything you might demand, if you can convince them even for a brief moment that you and only you are capable of delivering them from catastrophe.
Whatever the truth, I would advise one and all to keep their eyes on this issue to see how "government" ultimately responds. My tendency is to expect further claims to power with commensurate denigration of the individual prerogative.
Let us hope this does not prove out in the worst way imaginable, but be prepared for it in any case.
Be careful out there, and as always please accept my best wishes.
There is much debate over whether covid19, the so-called "corona virus" of Chinese origin, is a weapon. If you know the basics of that which drives bioweapon design, the confusion should subside at least in good part, though your unease may not.
There are a few holy grails after which the designers seek:
1: long latency (incubation) period. Thus far it is confirmed the latency is at least 14 days with some reports claiming as much as 24. This is quite long, so here we have a mark in favor of this being a weapon, and a rather suspicious one at that. Think of how far and how many people may travel from a single place in two weeks' time in this age of air travel. China with its billion and a half people could have thousands of individuals in every nation on earth in much less time than that. Thousands of highly contagious people could spread the virus to such an extent that there comes with it effectively zero hope of containment on any mass scale.
1a: And what if the actual latency varies between individuals such that in some people the agent incubates at intervals counted in months? Highly varying latency between individuals reduces predictability, which leaves people in a state of relative uncertainty not only as to the nature of the bug, but diagnostically, and also in terms of how human organizations such as "government" tend to respond. The less predictable the bug, the more difficult becomes our decision-making processes, diagnostics, etc. The longer a bug has to spread and the less telltale the outbreak pattern, the better for the wielder of the weapon.
2: Sudden onset. The virus appears to bring on symptoms rather suddenly. Mark the second, if a less convincing one.
3: High contagion during latency. It seems clear that the covi19 virus is at least very contagious during the latency period, if not wildly so. Mark the third.
4: High lethality. Because the numbers reported are not to be trusted, especially those offered later in the reporting cycle, it becomes very difficult to determine the rate of lethality. The possibly less-massaged numbers from January suggest a lethality of around 30-35%, which is very high. Those figures may not be representative of the truth, but then again the same may be said for those reported later on, which suggest far lower danger. Therefore, we remain in limbo on the question of the kill rate. But if perchance lethality is that high and this bug goes pandemic, which it now looks like it may, we are talking about nearly three billion dead at the speculated rate. Let us hope it proves less lethal. We cannot quite issue mark the fourth due almost certainly to the lies of the Chinese government.
5. A vaccine exists. If a vaccine already exists, and thus far there is no way of knowing, then the likelihood that covid19 is a weapon comes to perhaps 95% or greater. No mark in favor due simply to a lack of data.
We see three of five elements are marked in speculative favor of the covid19 virus being the product of willful human endeavor pursuant to the goal of developing a weapon. Sixty percent is not quite damning, but it gives great reason for pause. If this proves to be a weaponized organism, nobody should be surprised.
With this issue arise potentially great implications for human freedom as this is the precise sort of chaotic circumstance that permits for enormous force behind a tyrant's moves to gather ever greater power and false authority into his hands at the cost of individual liberty. In this sense, a pandemic of a highly lethal biological agent is functionally no different than that of a more conventional "terrorist" attack. It is, in fact, far greater a threat for any of several reasons, not the least of which is that the parties responsible always hold some plausible deniability. If there is no positively identified enemy beyond "mother nature", then there is nobody against whom to train one's weapons, further meaning there could possibly be no secure victory against the instrument of one's destruction. This is the brand of chaos that could be employed as the justification for utter usurpation of all power, whether by design from the get-go or by the pure opportunity of happenstance.
The justification of public health and national survival, when couched in the context of a general terror of a deadly plague, stands to meet with near-universal public acceptance. Frighten people sufficiently and they will surrender to you anything you might demand, if you can convince them even for a brief moment that you and only you are capable of delivering them from catastrophe.
Whatever the truth, I would advise one and all to keep their eyes on this issue to see how "government" ultimately responds. My tendency is to expect further claims to power with commensurate denigration of the individual prerogative.
Let us hope this does not prove out in the worst way imaginable, but be prepared for it in any case.
Be careful out there, and as always please accept my best wishes.
Thursday, February 13, 2020
GovernMENT Is Cancer
The degree to which "governMENT" exists in any given land and is freely accepted is a direct measure of the corruption of the people therein. If we are to have governMENT beyond the governANCE of each man over himself, then let it be so minimal that it becomes difficult even to detect that it is there.
GovernMENT's role should be to take into hand those cases where men fail to govern themselves, and even then the bodies of men functioning as such an institution must be treated with utmost suspicion that borders on contempt. The people must be ready to strike down with great and cruel resolve any governMENT which steps from the metes of its delegated authority so as to remind every individual in the land the hazards that await anyone as reward for treachery against their fellows.
"GovernMENT" should fear we, the people, with the deep thunder of knocking knees. They should live in abject terror of those whom they serve, the least thought of any presumption to rule shivering their souls to shards long before any action is so much as contemplated.
It is time to rein "governMENT" in. It is time to scrub the legislative gene pool free of the false law Theye call "statute" which serves but as pure trespass against the rightful prerogatives of free men.
Time is here; time to become a righteous people; a free people.
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Beware The Phenomenon Of Trump
Since about 2015 we have been seeing and hearing about the huge turnouts of Americans to the manifold Trump rallies. It is quite amazing to behold, given the past several decades of American political somnambulism. While potentially encouraging, I must advise caution and warn of the possible dangers lurking with the rise of President Trump.
My reasoning is as this: it is arguably good that people are becoming in some ways and measures politically aware, and at least active enough to show up to events, which prior to 9/11/2001 most were clearly not. The good here is the increase in interest and action. But is it enough? That remains to be seen, and therein lies one of the hazards - what if this is a flash in the pan? What if we have not the commitment to see a vision to its completion? More troubling still, is there even a vision present, or are the tens of millions of Trump supporters representative of tens of millions of half-baked and disparately vague notions, desires, and impulses? This should be a very real and immediate concern for anyone with a genuine and abiding interest in freedom and its prospects.
The potential bad: this becomes a cult of personality. Hitler and his Germany were in this sense a similar circumstance. Conditions were bleak, the Man rose in the wake of rhetoric that struck chords with a sufficient mass of the people, and he got things done. I am in no way accusing or equating here, but only observing the similarities in terms of the circumstances and historically-demonstrated human habit.
Further bad potential: the throng comes to rely on the icon to get it done, rather than taking responsibility for their own better interests, which includes becoming smart on certain crucial matters, and refusing to pimp those responsibilities off onto others whose trustworthiness can never be safely assumed regardless of outwardly apparent saintliness. This is perhaps the single greatest threat to the welfare of humanity, taken as a gestalt. It is certainly a central causal factor as to how so much abject misery has managed to rise in the human world and come to be accepted as inevitable, the mean man telling himself resignedly that this is just the way things are. Perhaps the worst of it is the apparent fact that this does not arise in mean man out of malice, but as the result of personal corruptions of which he is perhaps not even aware.
Untimely and gratuitous death, poverty, disease, and misery are not inevitable; certainly not on the immense scales to which history bears grim witness. They are vastly avoidable, far more so than the degrees to which we currently observe. But effective elimination requires proper human freedom, which in its turn requires the attitude of the Freeman. Restructuring one's world view from that of Weakman to Freeman is no mean task. It is monumentally difficult, and as we may readily witness it has thus far remained an unattained realization on a large-scale basis. The rot and cancer of the Weakman's mindset is deep and terribly destructive, for it is as the depiction of the vampire's victim in novels such as King's "Salem's Lot": once bitten, the victim no longer wishes to escape, but rather to give himself utterly to his murderer.
Think carefully on this and then ask yourself what it is that you really want from yourself, for yourself, of and for your life. What would you have for the lives of those whom you love and hold with deep regard and affection? Becoming and remaining in the servitude of pretty slavery is easy, but only so in a very false and deceptive way, for it is as living death even if one is unable to readily perceive it as such, particularly at the time of infection.
Choosing the path of freedom is eminently difficult, but the life of the Freeman is exhilarating, as well as challenging and even quite frightening at times. The benefits of freedom do not come at zero cost to those who would be free, nor should those costs be viewed as taxations upon the appeal of liberty. Rather, the proper view of those costs are that they constitute much of the spice of life; they are challenges worthy of free men who meet them with courage, strength, honor, dignity, eagerness, great love, and the heartfelt generosity and charity that the Superior Man carries within himself throughout his days.
The mere existence of the Weakman is, in contrast, dull such that if one remains in this world long enough in such a state, the prospect of his end becomes greatly welcomed, even if only unconsciously, for the boredom and the taxing mental poverty of it all becomes too much for even the most tepid and timid to bear. The condition of the Weakman acts in diametric opposition to the fundamental nature of the human animal, and yet just as with any other disease, we are as individuals all prone to such contamination, the result of which appears most often as a fate far worse than death.
So my rarely given advice to all the good people who support the forty-fifth president of the United States of America is that they take to heart my call to caution, self-examination, and to make it a point to learn what it truly means to be properly free, if freedom be decided as one's personal desire.
As always, please accept my best wishes.
My reasoning is as this: it is arguably good that people are becoming in some ways and measures politically aware, and at least active enough to show up to events, which prior to 9/11/2001 most were clearly not. The good here is the increase in interest and action. But is it enough? That remains to be seen, and therein lies one of the hazards - what if this is a flash in the pan? What if we have not the commitment to see a vision to its completion? More troubling still, is there even a vision present, or are the tens of millions of Trump supporters representative of tens of millions of half-baked and disparately vague notions, desires, and impulses? This should be a very real and immediate concern for anyone with a genuine and abiding interest in freedom and its prospects.
The potential bad: this becomes a cult of personality. Hitler and his Germany were in this sense a similar circumstance. Conditions were bleak, the Man rose in the wake of rhetoric that struck chords with a sufficient mass of the people, and he got things done. I am in no way accusing or equating here, but only observing the similarities in terms of the circumstances and historically-demonstrated human habit.
Further bad potential: the throng comes to rely on the icon to get it done, rather than taking responsibility for their own better interests, which includes becoming smart on certain crucial matters, and refusing to pimp those responsibilities off onto others whose trustworthiness can never be safely assumed regardless of outwardly apparent saintliness. This is perhaps the single greatest threat to the welfare of humanity, taken as a gestalt. It is certainly a central causal factor as to how so much abject misery has managed to rise in the human world and come to be accepted as inevitable, the mean man telling himself resignedly that this is just the way things are. Perhaps the worst of it is the apparent fact that this does not arise in mean man out of malice, but as the result of personal corruptions of which he is perhaps not even aware.
Untimely and gratuitous death, poverty, disease, and misery are not inevitable; certainly not on the immense scales to which history bears grim witness. They are vastly avoidable, far more so than the degrees to which we currently observe. But effective elimination requires proper human freedom, which in its turn requires the attitude of the Freeman. Restructuring one's world view from that of Weakman to Freeman is no mean task. It is monumentally difficult, and as we may readily witness it has thus far remained an unattained realization on a large-scale basis. The rot and cancer of the Weakman's mindset is deep and terribly destructive, for it is as the depiction of the vampire's victim in novels such as King's "Salem's Lot": once bitten, the victim no longer wishes to escape, but rather to give himself utterly to his murderer.
Think carefully on this and then ask yourself what it is that you really want from yourself, for yourself, of and for your life. What would you have for the lives of those whom you love and hold with deep regard and affection? Becoming and remaining in the servitude of pretty slavery is easy, but only so in a very false and deceptive way, for it is as living death even if one is unable to readily perceive it as such, particularly at the time of infection.
Choosing the path of freedom is eminently difficult, but the life of the Freeman is exhilarating, as well as challenging and even quite frightening at times. The benefits of freedom do not come at zero cost to those who would be free, nor should those costs be viewed as taxations upon the appeal of liberty. Rather, the proper view of those costs are that they constitute much of the spice of life; they are challenges worthy of free men who meet them with courage, strength, honor, dignity, eagerness, great love, and the heartfelt generosity and charity that the Superior Man carries within himself throughout his days.
The mere existence of the Weakman is, in contrast, dull such that if one remains in this world long enough in such a state, the prospect of his end becomes greatly welcomed, even if only unconsciously, for the boredom and the taxing mental poverty of it all becomes too much for even the most tepid and timid to bear. The condition of the Weakman acts in diametric opposition to the fundamental nature of the human animal, and yet just as with any other disease, we are as individuals all prone to such contamination, the result of which appears most often as a fate far worse than death.
So my rarely given advice to all the good people who support the forty-fifth president of the United States of America is that they take to heart my call to caution, self-examination, and to make it a point to learn what it truly means to be properly free, if freedom be decided as one's personal desire.
As always, please accept my best wishes.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Political Freedom In An Unfree World
The world is run by two major factions: tyrants and willing slaves, the two in my very rough estimation comprising about 99.5% to 99.9% of the world's population. Some small dreg of the remainder is comprised of those very few humans who do not share the mindset of either controlling interest, but are in fact free men.
There is much to discuss on these matters, yet so little of value has been put forth that is worthy of pursuit, architecting, tuning, and realization.
The vast majority of humanity are, in their minds, willing slaves to those who presume to lord over them. They are do deeply hoodwinked, so blinded to the greater truth regarding proper human relations, there is little to no hope that they can be brought around to the veracity of their innate status as free beings.
Such people, the vast majority of all humanity, are bred and trained to fear, and consequently hate actual freedom. They have been long marinated in the mental swill that bends their thoughts and perceptions to the will and convenience of the tyrant. And so it has gone for thousands of years to ever growing advantage of the would-be lords of humanity as the body of man's knowledge has grown, hitting what currently appears to be at least the beginning of an asymptotic stride upward such that even a single man can now wield nearly unimaginable degrees and sorts of control over vast populations.
The oddly paradoxical element in all this, however, is that those of the tyrant class are every bit the inmates as those over whom they presume their false authority as valid, the only differences lying in the dimensions and appointments of their respective prisons. Theye are every bit as trapped in their roles as tyrants as are those who willingly submit to the various and manifestly cruel oppressions. In this way, the slaves are not only willing participants in the play that is human politics, they hold an oblique brand of odd authority over the tyrants as well, the practical upshot being that Theye are as shackled as are the rest.
The result is a system of mutually reinforcing authoritarianism whose truer nature is belied by the superficial differences between the respective roles. Theye only think they are in charge in some gestalt manner, suffering under the symmetric delusion that the proles have no power over them. This, however, is in itself deeply delusional, for Theye have no more access to freedom than do those of the slave class.
The moment one is able to realize this truth, the machinations of the so-called "elites" become mostly droll with punctuations of hilarity. Hilarious and boring it would all be, were it not fo the fact of Theire murderous natures, but that is a topic irrelevant to this far more fundamental topic.
The ruler and the ruled form a gestalt, a whole. Each has devolved in such manner that each can no longer live without the other, even though they both seem, statistically speaking, to believe that each is somehow better or more important than the other. They are, in fact, equally corrupt and responsible for the grand and miserable fiasco that is the human race.
But what of the one percent of the one percent; that small handful of men who not only see themselves as free, but who act in accord with that very belief to the greatest degree possible, which does not bring the wrath of master and slave alike upon them and those dear? Those are the people to whom my concern and affections turn, for they are the only examples of the human animal worthy.
What, indeed... Given the Gordian Knot of mutually fortifying corruption between ruler and ruled, is there a social architecture that allows for meaningful freedom in the vast oceans of putrescent tyranny? I am not sure, but I have given this much thought over the decades. The older I get and the more clearly I see the hopelessness for the greater wad of humanity, the clearer it becomes to me that the ideal of anarchy is currently unworkable in any population other than those of trivial proportions.
In my opinion and based on my observations of contemporary human societies, humans were not designed to do well in the large populations we currently see. Rather, they appear to better flourish in comparatively tiny groups that are more akin to extended families than great undifferentiated wads of fungible units. This truth seems to eliminate anarchy as a viable option for the human world as it currently exists.
Barring a "reset event", one that is so deeply disruptive of daily reality as to present every living man with a set of clear and immediate choices that bear on their abilities to survive from one moment to the next, the future for ideal and proper human freedom appears bleak. All, however, is not lost.
The next best thing, which so far as I can see may be configured so as to be nearly indistinguishable from non-formalized anarchic life, is what some call "minarchy". I am not particularly fond of this moniker as it carries certain baggage that appears to lead to little better than endless bickering precisely due to the typically poor habits of language and, thereby, thought of far too great a plurality of humans.
The best I have been able to concoct for my own purposes is "panarchy", suggestive of the fact that governance is the responsibility of every man, rather than some elite subgroup upon whom personal responsibility is pimped by the corrupted masses who wish to be free of their personal obligations pursuant to the proper conduction of daily commerce between men.
But central to the notion of anarchic or panarchic life is the concept of autodiathism, which is nothing fancier than the idea that people hold the right and the corresponding responsibilities of self-determination. The freedom to choose for oneself how to live and what to do on a moment by moment basis is inherent to men. There exist none of the falsely concocted "societal" obligations forwarded and in many cases foisted by master and slave alike. The only obligation of one man to his fellows is that he refrain from violating the equal claims of others. The rubric of the Free Man is the canon of the Golden Rule itself. It is simple, clear, complete, and correct, requiring no modification of any sort.
This all said, what then is the practicable solution for free men? Separation, plain and simple. Physical separation is very helpful, but mental and "spiritual" or "attitudinal" segregation are paramount, as is that of deeply ingrained habit that comes only through endless repetition and refinement such that these qualities become one's first nature.
To this end, territorial secession becomes a deep practical necessity, particularly in the absence of a binding and unifying sense of the sacred such as that found in various religious communities such as those of fundamentalist Jews. But even that is not a good replacement for physical territories wherein the inhabitants are nominally safe from the violent predations of the tyrant. Consider those same Jewish communities in places such as New York City. There is great cohesion within the Lubavitcher community, and yet they are not quite properly free a they remain beholden to the violative ordinances of the municipality, the so-called "Sullivan Laws" coming immediately to mind, which prohibit them from keeping and bearing arms for defense of the individual and the community at large. This sad truth leaves those people and all like them in a degraded state where either they comply with the "law" or risk severe repercussions if they choose not to comply with the possession of a firearm without the approval of the "state". In my opinion, this is no way to live. It is certainly not a free man's living.
And so it would appear that given the current circumstances, the best practical base step is to secede as a group in physical and legal possession of a territory and establish a conceptually separate entity that has well defined physical borders and a properly architected social order upon which all residents are in sufficient agreement such that everyone is able to live as he pleases so long as he does not engage in violations of the equal prerogatives of his neighbors.
Furthermore, and contrary to the common wisdom of the so-called "left" or "progressives", "socialists", "communists" and other mentally unsound sorts, if the new society is to survive, much less flourish, a clear, sufficient, and faithfully applied set of rules must be set into place that controls those borders, as well as who is allowed to cross them. Americans knew and accepted this as intuitively obvious until comparatively very recently in their history. Today, the progressives prattle on endlessly about how we as Americans are absolutely obliged to admit any and all comers to this land of opportunity, regardless of their political biases against the dominant culture, their hatred of the people of this land, any wildly communicable diseases they may carry, and so forth. This, of course, is raving, suicidal madness. It is of interest to note how those same people appear to have no issue whatsoever with other nations controlling their borders, often in what might be viewed as draconian fashion.
To summarize, the best and most practically viable path toward the establishment of a place in which free men are allowed to exercise their full prerogatives as such are as follow:
- Begin at the beginning, which involves the identification of the set of rules by which the residents of the free land will comport themselves without coercion, but rather with understanding and the eagerness that arises therefrom.
- Inculcate the members with the spirit and specifications of the Freeman. Teach them to recognize, distinguish, and understand the differences between Freemen and Weakmen. Teach them to value the Freeman and to pity and despise the sadly corrupted Weakman who poses endless dangers to himself and everyone around him.
- Teach to deep understanding and appreciation the centrally vital role that language plays in the life of the Freeman, ensuring that everyone as a matter of basic culture understand how lost they are without profound skills in the art and science of verbal communication; that they are little more than an empty shells without a well and sharply tuned facility of spoken and written language. The importance of this cannot be overstated.
- Render aware the two-edged nature of freedom, benefits and costs, rights and responsibilities.
- Render aware that which freedom demands of a man, specifically:
- Intelligence
- Smarts (intellect developed into practical knowledge and skill)
- Courage
- Integrity
- Generosity
- Inculcate and attitude of eagerness for those demands, such that they regard them as great things to which to aspire, rather than as things to be dreaded and avoided at nearly any cost.
- Self-respect
- Respect for others
- Value in one's relationships
- Rights: what they are, their characteristics, how they work and, equally importantly, how they do not.
- Respect for property
- The beauty and value of love
- Identify a territory, such as a county-sized region, and settle it with large numbers of like-spirited cohorts. Attempting to secede on a statewide basis is likely too ambitious.
Unlike pretty slavery, freedom is difficult. As much as it is exhilarating, is can be exhausting and terrifying because it demands much, while offering no guarantees whatsoever. The things it does offer, however, are opportunity and, ... itself!
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
Ending The "Deep State"?
The Deep State, or DS from here on in, is loosely defined as the body of entrenched governmental officials whose tenures at duty span the comings and goings of multiple administrations. As such, the potential for long-term, concerted, rational, coherent corruption not only exists, but has in fact become commonplace. With time the rot, once established, can grow as the entrenched few gain internal clout and recruit and emplace those of their feather, growing their ranks and advancing their agendas. By this means has power been usurped and cultivated, affecting the brands of change desired, which invariably runs toward tyranny.
In 2016, Donald J. Trump became the forty-fifth president of the United States, at least in part upon his promise of "drain[ing] the swamp", which was his way of referring to the DS.
Given the definition, it would seem clear that if we value freedom, purging the DS would be one of the things to do, and I assert that indeed it is. But such a cleansing is not sufficient to the longer term prospects for freedom. As things stand, what is there to prevent a new DS from arising in the future? The answer, I am sad to say, is "nothing". There is nothing to prevent a new legion of tyrants from coming into power, which means that something needs to change.
Purges may be all well and good, though historically they tend to become bloodbath disasters for reasons we will not discuss here, but when the division of labor that serves us so well in some respects is allowed to remain in the realm of politics, tyranny becomes virtually guaranteed. Division of labor in the political arena is what leads to the rise of a Deep State, pretty much guaranteeing it. When applied to political offices, a division of labor results in specialization in the machinations of the so-called "government".
With governmental specialization comes the notion of expertise along comparatively narrow lines of skill and, presumably, duty. In the case of political establishments, there attaches to the notion of expertise the often tacit idea of exclusivity of authority precisely because we speak of political office. The logic is a bit more complicated than just this, but even this comparatively superficial description reveals the tortured nature of the reasoning behind these often unstated positions. It is, in fact, absurd and wholly unsustainable, save for the fact that these "rules" are kept deeply tacit such that explicit expressions are avoided in order to keep people in the dark, that they not come to understand how it is they are being subjugated as functional slaves under the boot-heal of those who presume themselves the masters.
Unlike with any other organization, the stations of the various political offices claim exclusive authority to command the behavior of the rest. This is a subtle form of evil that is more dangerous than all the armies of the world, combined. The most frightening and sad fact in all of this is that for the most part, the wad of governed humanity meekly accepts this exclusivity with no effective opposition, like sheep obediently trudging along the chute to be slaughtered.
Let nobody occupy any governmental station long enough to become an entrenched "expert". Some may claim that this will lead to having unqualified people in positions of governance. To this I say "GREAT!!". Let there be no experts. Let there be nobody holding the brands of exclusivity of authority that is commonplace today. Let all power be questioned and challenged daily. Let the conditions be such that deep expertise is no longer required because governance is conducted along the simple lines of the basic principles of proper human relations, rather than the chicanery of special interests the leads to unnatural complication, which in turn is used as the justification for entrenched experts whose words cannot be questioned.
It is all well and good to remove the corruption, but unless we restructure our attitudes and our roles to best ensure it never rises again, we all but guarantee that it will. This means that not only must the division of labor in government be eliminated and disallowed into the deep future, but the void created there must be filled by "ordinary" men - generalists who, while not as expert in the various offices, don't need it and, in fact, recoil from the idea of it. All men must become governors, primarily of themselves, but also willing and able to assume an office.
Until we become a race of political generalists, we doom ourselves to ongoing tyranny, subjugation, oppression, and to suffer all the degradations of health, happiness, fortune, and liberty that tyranny universally brings at the hands of the specialists who claim sole authority to tell us what we may do, cannot do, and are compelled to do.
We do not need leaders if we are all leaders of our own lives. Stop trusting and depending upon others for your basic needs, your political needs, your liberty, your choices. Be your own president, as it were. Lead yourself. Govern yourself. Learn the principles of proper human relations and render them your second nature. Become the Superior Man and, rather than shrink from the responsibilities and obligations that carry therewith, revel in them, in the power that it confers. It can be done, if you really want it.
Do you?
As always, please accept my best wishes.
In 2016, Donald J. Trump became the forty-fifth president of the United States, at least in part upon his promise of "drain[ing] the swamp", which was his way of referring to the DS.
Given the definition, it would seem clear that if we value freedom, purging the DS would be one of the things to do, and I assert that indeed it is. But such a cleansing is not sufficient to the longer term prospects for freedom. As things stand, what is there to prevent a new DS from arising in the future? The answer, I am sad to say, is "nothing". There is nothing to prevent a new legion of tyrants from coming into power, which means that something needs to change.
Purges may be all well and good, though historically they tend to become bloodbath disasters for reasons we will not discuss here, but when the division of labor that serves us so well in some respects is allowed to remain in the realm of politics, tyranny becomes virtually guaranteed. Division of labor in the political arena is what leads to the rise of a Deep State, pretty much guaranteeing it. When applied to political offices, a division of labor results in specialization in the machinations of the so-called "government".
With governmental specialization comes the notion of expertise along comparatively narrow lines of skill and, presumably, duty. In the case of political establishments, there attaches to the notion of expertise the often tacit idea of exclusivity of authority precisely because we speak of political office. The logic is a bit more complicated than just this, but even this comparatively superficial description reveals the tortured nature of the reasoning behind these often unstated positions. It is, in fact, absurd and wholly unsustainable, save for the fact that these "rules" are kept deeply tacit such that explicit expressions are avoided in order to keep people in the dark, that they not come to understand how it is they are being subjugated as functional slaves under the boot-heal of those who presume themselves the masters.
Unlike with any other organization, the stations of the various political offices claim exclusive authority to command the behavior of the rest. This is a subtle form of evil that is more dangerous than all the armies of the world, combined. The most frightening and sad fact in all of this is that for the most part, the wad of governed humanity meekly accepts this exclusivity with no effective opposition, like sheep obediently trudging along the chute to be slaughtered.
Let nobody occupy any governmental station long enough to become an entrenched "expert". Some may claim that this will lead to having unqualified people in positions of governance. To this I say "GREAT!!". Let there be no experts. Let there be nobody holding the brands of exclusivity of authority that is commonplace today. Let all power be questioned and challenged daily. Let the conditions be such that deep expertise is no longer required because governance is conducted along the simple lines of the basic principles of proper human relations, rather than the chicanery of special interests the leads to unnatural complication, which in turn is used as the justification for entrenched experts whose words cannot be questioned.
It is all well and good to remove the corruption, but unless we restructure our attitudes and our roles to best ensure it never rises again, we all but guarantee that it will. This means that not only must the division of labor in government be eliminated and disallowed into the deep future, but the void created there must be filled by "ordinary" men - generalists who, while not as expert in the various offices, don't need it and, in fact, recoil from the idea of it. All men must become governors, primarily of themselves, but also willing and able to assume an office.
Until we become a race of political generalists, we doom ourselves to ongoing tyranny, subjugation, oppression, and to suffer all the degradations of health, happiness, fortune, and liberty that tyranny universally brings at the hands of the specialists who claim sole authority to tell us what we may do, cannot do, and are compelled to do.
We do not need leaders if we are all leaders of our own lives. Stop trusting and depending upon others for your basic needs, your political needs, your liberty, your choices. Be your own president, as it were. Lead yourself. Govern yourself. Learn the principles of proper human relations and render them your second nature. Become the Superior Man and, rather than shrink from the responsibilities and obligations that carry therewith, revel in them, in the power that it confers. It can be done, if you really want it.
Do you?
As always, please accept my best wishes.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Structural Rights
The term "natural rights" appears to give a great many people, most of whom appear to my eyes to be something of cynics, great heartburn. Though the world needs more jargon about as much as we all need additional holes in our heads, I would like to offer a term in the spirit of easing the violent rejection experienced by so many who rebel against notion of "natural rights".
The term I would like to introduce is "structural rights", a designation synonymous with "natural rights". Why, then, offer up yet another term for the same concept? Just as many people turn off at any mention of religion that is not cursing or damning it, so it has been with talk of natural rights, which I suspect is often intimately associated with "God-given rights", which brings us right back to the religion issue and the related aversions.
Whatever the true reason, a great number of people reject the concept of natural rights, often with protestations that run along the lines of the belief that there are no such things, replete with the notable absence of anything even vaguely resembling a valid argument in support of the assertion. That, of course, is quite untrue, but if one wishes to enter into discourse of the nature of our fundamental rights as human beings, one must first be able to get others to listen.
Therefore, if the exchange of ideas is the intermediate objective in order to bring others to a better understanding of what rights actually are, perhaps with a goal of persuasion, we have to be able to get the ideas on the table before people turn off or, ever more commonly today, go on a war footing.
For many, "natural rights", appears to have an air of some tacit and invalid bias about it, whereas "structural rights" is more neutral sounding, rather than something that's escaped the inner sanctum of the great temple at Hokum. When presented in this seemingly neutral cast, I have found in many cases that people remain off their guard and actually listen to what it is you have to say thereafter.
What can we say of our structure as beings? The short logic chain might look something like this:
Our very structure as beings drives us to the claims we call our rights. It is precisely because we all share those drives in common, and act pursuant to the interests those claims seek to serve, that no man holds the authority to dismiss such claims of his fellows. This is the true meaning of "equality" between individuals. Our structural rights are equal between us because we share identical claims to life at the most abstract level.
One man cannot validly assert a greater claim to his life than I do to mine, for the contention makes no sense on the one hand, and cannot in any event be validly proven, on the other. Furthermore, one man may not validly assert a greater claim to the life of another than the other may to his own. It can be well argued that one man can assert a claim to the life of another man, certainly not without consent, and all else equal.
The very structures we share as living entities defines our rights and establishes the true and proper senses of our equality as living beings.
"Structural rights" as an alternative card to play may prove a good tool to keep up your sleeve in the event you run into one of those sorts who runs from "natural rights" as if he were on fire.
For what it is worth the alternative phrasing is offered, and as always please accept my best wishes.
The term I would like to introduce is "structural rights", a designation synonymous with "natural rights". Why, then, offer up yet another term for the same concept? Just as many people turn off at any mention of religion that is not cursing or damning it, so it has been with talk of natural rights, which I suspect is often intimately associated with "God-given rights", which brings us right back to the religion issue and the related aversions.
Whatever the true reason, a great number of people reject the concept of natural rights, often with protestations that run along the lines of the belief that there are no such things, replete with the notable absence of anything even vaguely resembling a valid argument in support of the assertion. That, of course, is quite untrue, but if one wishes to enter into discourse of the nature of our fundamental rights as human beings, one must first be able to get others to listen.
Therefore, if the exchange of ideas is the intermediate objective in order to bring others to a better understanding of what rights actually are, perhaps with a goal of persuasion, we have to be able to get the ideas on the table before people turn off or, ever more commonly today, go on a war footing.
For many, "natural rights", appears to have an air of some tacit and invalid bias about it, whereas "structural rights" is more neutral sounding, rather than something that's escaped the inner sanctum of the great temple at Hokum. When presented in this seemingly neutral cast, I have found in many cases that people remain off their guard and actually listen to what it is you have to say thereafter.
What can we say of our structure as beings? The short logic chain might look something like this:
- We all live
- That which lives appears to universally wish to remain so, all else equal
- Wishing to remain alive, it follows that we claim our lives as our own; what I have termed our "First Property".
- Our claim to life is precisely our right to life because a right is defined as a "just claim".
- Therefore, by virtue of being alive and wishing to remain so, we assert our claims to our First Property, that is, our very structure as beings.
- By extension, we further stake our claims to that which sustains our structures as living beings.
- Our structure as living beings, part of which is the drive to remain alive, leads to our claims to life and all that which is necessary to not only survive, but preferably to thrive.
Our very structure as beings drives us to the claims we call our rights. It is precisely because we all share those drives in common, and act pursuant to the interests those claims seek to serve, that no man holds the authority to dismiss such claims of his fellows. This is the true meaning of "equality" between individuals. Our structural rights are equal between us because we share identical claims to life at the most abstract level.
One man cannot validly assert a greater claim to his life than I do to mine, for the contention makes no sense on the one hand, and cannot in any event be validly proven, on the other. Furthermore, one man may not validly assert a greater claim to the life of another than the other may to his own. It can be well argued that one man can assert a claim to the life of another man, certainly not without consent, and all else equal.
The very structures we share as living entities defines our rights and establishes the true and proper senses of our equality as living beings.
"Structural rights" as an alternative card to play may prove a good tool to keep up your sleeve in the event you run into one of those sorts who runs from "natural rights" as if he were on fire.
For what it is worth the alternative phrasing is offered, and as always please accept my best wishes.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Humanity Degraded Results In Today's Version Of "Civilization"
When men living in proximity to each other do so with an attitude of basic respect for themselves and their brethren, anarchy is invariably the result.
It is only when men abandon the basic morality born into them that "civilization" and the pestilence it visits upon them becomes the normal condition under which people must suffer the miseries of each others' tyrannies, heaped hand over fist by every man upon every other, most often in the form of the fictions that are "goverment" and "the state".
It is only in the wake of moral degradation that men come to accept being "civilized" by others of equal or greater corruption, and in whom no such authority to thwart and reduce can be said to exist. Men turn their backs upon themselves and their fellows in betrayal of the sacred gift of Life, equally bestowed to each by the Infinite. There is no truth sadder or less necessary than this. It is an affront to the Sacred; it is the ultimate obscenity.
But if we are to more fully understand what is actually happening, what our condition is more truly, we must first understand what it means to be "civilized". Let us start by consulting the dictionary.
Samuel Johnson's 1785 dictionary of the English language puts it this surprising way:
CIVILSATION n. s. 1. A law which renders a criminal process civil.
2. The act of civilizing.
3. The state of being civilized
Definition one is not quite clear. Turning our attention to "civil", Johnson's states:
CIVIL a. 1. Relating to the community
2. Relating to any man as a member of a community.
3. Not in anarchy; not wild.
4. Not foreign; intestine; as, a civil war.
5. Not ecclesiatical; as the civil courts.
6. Not natural; as, civil death.
7. Not military; as, the civil magistrate.
8. Not criminal; as, a civil process.
9. Civilized; not barbarous.
10. Grave, sosber.
11. Relating to the ancient consular or imperial government; as in civil law.
Now to the definition of "civilize":
CIVILIZE v. a. 1.To reclaim from savageness.
From the same source, "savageness":
SAVAGENESS n. s. 1. Barbarousness; cruelty; wildness
And "barbarousness":
BARBAROUSNESS n. s. 1. Incivility of manners; impurity of language; cruelty
So what, then, are we to make of definition 1 of "civilsation", as it is the only one that seems even remotely relevant? It says "A law which renders a criminal process civil." What does that mean? Not natural, as per def. 6 for "civil"? Not criminal, as per def. 8, ibid? Because of this grand failure to pin down with complete rigor, we can make nothing certain of "civilization", which leaves tyrants open to make it mean whatever they please.
When we consider how much of our world rests upon the notion of "civilization", do you not find it somewhat disturbing that the definitions of the term and its semantic relatives are so vague, imprecise, incomplete, and circular? If not, perhaps you would be well served to begin.
This semantic failure is utterly unacceptable if we Freemen are to live up to our purported ideals. How are we, the standing Freemen of the world, to move forward as such beings if we do not understand the most basic notions of what it means to live among each other with the proprieties that proper human freedom carries as matters of its very fabric? The answer, of course, is that we cannot, and ought not accept this deplorable condition, for to do so leaves the doors ajar for clever tyrants who would play on the ignorance, fear, and other raw emotions of men for the sake of gaining power over them, by hook or by crook. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it hobbles us as Freemen because it degrades, diminishes, disparages, maligns, and leads astray our understanding of the deeper truth of Proper Human Relations. If we do not understand how to live properly among each other, then the tyrants are free to foist upon us literally anything, regardless of the outrage of it it, precisely because we are insufficient to the task of arguing against it.
What, then, are we to do in the face of this most unfortunate truth, that the very definitions of the terms in such common use, are almost devoid of concrete meaning? We remedy the situation by providing a definition that is worthy of the moniker. To that end, I offer to the world the following definition of "civilization":
CIVILIZATION: n. s.
The condition under which people live among and amid each other such that each individual is wholly, utterly, and completely free to choose, decide, and act as he pleases pursuant to his desires and judgments, so long as he refrains from violating the equal rights and consequent prerogatives of his fellows.
CIVILIZED: a.
A state of living such that the conditions thereof are those of a civilization.
This is what "civilization" ought to mean. To be civil should be synonymous with being free. Alas, it is anything but that. In today's world, civilization is precisely what we have: a prison-like environment where the whims of a ruling subpopulation are forced upon the rest, failures to comply most often carrying draconian consequences.
The current reality of "civiilization" is nothing short of a nightmare for countless billions of human beings.
Consider the so-called "drug laws" and the war that has been waged pursuant to enforcement of those invalid and tyrannical mandates. Consider the seemingly endless litany of lives that have been unjustly destroyed for failure to comply with the non-authoritative demands of a ruling elite who decide what we may do, possess, think, and feel. There are literally millions of human beings languishing in American prisons for non-criminal acts such as possessing, using, and/or selling proscribed substances such as cannabis, heroin, and methamphetamine.
Few people will argue that the illicit use of heroin is a "good" thing, save perhaps the addicts themselves. However, regardless of how unwise such use may prove, it is nonetheless not a crime to use, possess, or sell heroin. That some arbitrarily constituted body of de facto tyrants declares it a felony to possess, use, or sell heroin and codifies the prohibition by statutory means, it does not follow that it is so. That is, statute is not perforce Law, all protestations by legislators and perhaps courts to the contrary notwithstanding.
Consider now those statutory instruments that have criminalized prostitution. Is the payment to one human being by another a criminal act? It is demonstrably not, and therefore it cannot be validly prohibited to any man by any other. To do so is bald-faced tyranny, no matter how repugnant one man may find the deed. The prohibition is itself a felony masquerading every so thinly as Law.
How about homosexual acts? Are they criminal? At one time there were statutes on the books that said "yes". And yet, they are not. Men are free to be disgusted by homosexuality, if they are so moved. What they are not free to do is interfere with the rightful prerogative of all men the choose such acts if they are inclined to it.
The list of capriciously arbitrary prohibitions is sometimes appears endless, with more being added by the day in clear violation of the sovereign rights of every human being walking the planet. Is there a remedy for this? Yes, but the question is not that of existence, but rather of the will of men in sufficient proportions to make real a better world, a free world. Thus far, that question has met with the grim answer, and yet hope is not quite lost, if it be ever so skinny from lack of nourishment. We, the tall-standing Freemen of the world may yet bring some harrow to the tyrannies that beset every man, including the tyrants, for they are as much imprisoned by their own schemes as are the rest of us.
I therefore implore ye of good character and who love freedom truly and completely, to spread the word and to help us all by endeavoring to bring to clarity the very words that underpin our lives in such a manner as to give better effect to the thoughts of free men the world over. Help us form the ironclad framework of conceptual understanding such that those who yearn for something better from this world are gifted with the tools necessary for the affect of change to those ends.
We do not have to live as chattel, serfs, prisoners. Theye can be stopped. Stopping Themme is not even particularly difficult - not if you have the knowledge in numbers, coupled with the drive to achieve the worthy goal of freedom in our lifetimes. It is the will to the goal, which in turn is driven by sufficient and proper understanding, that is the trick here. We are eight billion mostly ignorant souls, generationally hoodwinked by those who presume to reign over us as lords. The only way out, the only first step, is realization and the thirst to learn the greater truth of what it means to live properly amid one's fellow souls.
May the hunger for freedom grow and intensify such that we all begin to help one another, rather than suspect, despise, dismiss, and even hate our brethren. It is precisely that division between us that keeps the Tyrant on his throne, free to dictate as he might please. Are we going to allow this to continue? I pray we do not.
So long for now, and may the spirit of freedom bring its blessings upon you.
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
It is only when men abandon the basic morality born into them that "civilization" and the pestilence it visits upon them becomes the normal condition under which people must suffer the miseries of each others' tyrannies, heaped hand over fist by every man upon every other, most often in the form of the fictions that are "goverment" and "the state".
It is only in the wake of moral degradation that men come to accept being "civilized" by others of equal or greater corruption, and in whom no such authority to thwart and reduce can be said to exist. Men turn their backs upon themselves and their fellows in betrayal of the sacred gift of Life, equally bestowed to each by the Infinite. There is no truth sadder or less necessary than this. It is an affront to the Sacred; it is the ultimate obscenity.
But if we are to more fully understand what is actually happening, what our condition is more truly, we must first understand what it means to be "civilized". Let us start by consulting the dictionary.
Samuel Johnson's 1785 dictionary of the English language puts it this surprising way:
CIVILSATION n. s. 1. A law which renders a criminal process civil.
2. The act of civilizing.
3. The state of being civilized
Definition one is not quite clear. Turning our attention to "civil", Johnson's states:
CIVIL a. 1. Relating to the community
2. Relating to any man as a member of a community.
3. Not in anarchy; not wild.
4. Not foreign; intestine; as, a civil war.
5. Not ecclesiatical; as the civil courts.
6. Not natural; as, civil death.
7. Not military; as, the civil magistrate.
8. Not criminal; as, a civil process.
9. Civilized; not barbarous.
10. Grave, sosber.
11. Relating to the ancient consular or imperial government; as in civil law.
Now to the definition of "civilize":
CIVILIZE v. a. 1.To reclaim from savageness.
From the same source, "savageness":
SAVAGENESS n. s. 1. Barbarousness; cruelty; wildness
And "barbarousness":
BARBAROUSNESS n. s. 1. Incivility of manners; impurity of language; cruelty
So what, then, are we to make of definition 1 of "civilsation", as it is the only one that seems even remotely relevant? It says "A law which renders a criminal process civil." What does that mean? Not natural, as per def. 6 for "civil"? Not criminal, as per def. 8, ibid? Because of this grand failure to pin down with complete rigor, we can make nothing certain of "civilization", which leaves tyrants open to make it mean whatever they please.
When we consider how much of our world rests upon the notion of "civilization", do you not find it somewhat disturbing that the definitions of the term and its semantic relatives are so vague, imprecise, incomplete, and circular? If not, perhaps you would be well served to begin.
This semantic failure is utterly unacceptable if we Freemen are to live up to our purported ideals. How are we, the standing Freemen of the world, to move forward as such beings if we do not understand the most basic notions of what it means to live among each other with the proprieties that proper human freedom carries as matters of its very fabric? The answer, of course, is that we cannot, and ought not accept this deplorable condition, for to do so leaves the doors ajar for clever tyrants who would play on the ignorance, fear, and other raw emotions of men for the sake of gaining power over them, by hook or by crook. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it hobbles us as Freemen because it degrades, diminishes, disparages, maligns, and leads astray our understanding of the deeper truth of Proper Human Relations. If we do not understand how to live properly among each other, then the tyrants are free to foist upon us literally anything, regardless of the outrage of it it, precisely because we are insufficient to the task of arguing against it.
What, then, are we to do in the face of this most unfortunate truth, that the very definitions of the terms in such common use, are almost devoid of concrete meaning? We remedy the situation by providing a definition that is worthy of the moniker. To that end, I offer to the world the following definition of "civilization":
CIVILIZATION: n. s.
The condition under which people live among and amid each other such that each individual is wholly, utterly, and completely free to choose, decide, and act as he pleases pursuant to his desires and judgments, so long as he refrains from violating the equal rights and consequent prerogatives of his fellows.
CIVILIZED: a.
A state of living such that the conditions thereof are those of a civilization.
This is what "civilization" ought to mean. To be civil should be synonymous with being free. Alas, it is anything but that. In today's world, civilization is precisely what we have: a prison-like environment where the whims of a ruling subpopulation are forced upon the rest, failures to comply most often carrying draconian consequences.
The current reality of "civiilization" is nothing short of a nightmare for countless billions of human beings.
Consider the so-called "drug laws" and the war that has been waged pursuant to enforcement of those invalid and tyrannical mandates. Consider the seemingly endless litany of lives that have been unjustly destroyed for failure to comply with the non-authoritative demands of a ruling elite who decide what we may do, possess, think, and feel. There are literally millions of human beings languishing in American prisons for non-criminal acts such as possessing, using, and/or selling proscribed substances such as cannabis, heroin, and methamphetamine.
Few people will argue that the illicit use of heroin is a "good" thing, save perhaps the addicts themselves. However, regardless of how unwise such use may prove, it is nonetheless not a crime to use, possess, or sell heroin. That some arbitrarily constituted body of de facto tyrants declares it a felony to possess, use, or sell heroin and codifies the prohibition by statutory means, it does not follow that it is so. That is, statute is not perforce Law, all protestations by legislators and perhaps courts to the contrary notwithstanding.
Consider now those statutory instruments that have criminalized prostitution. Is the payment to one human being by another a criminal act? It is demonstrably not, and therefore it cannot be validly prohibited to any man by any other. To do so is bald-faced tyranny, no matter how repugnant one man may find the deed. The prohibition is itself a felony masquerading every so thinly as Law.
How about homosexual acts? Are they criminal? At one time there were statutes on the books that said "yes". And yet, they are not. Men are free to be disgusted by homosexuality, if they are so moved. What they are not free to do is interfere with the rightful prerogative of all men the choose such acts if they are inclined to it.
The list of capriciously arbitrary prohibitions is sometimes appears endless, with more being added by the day in clear violation of the sovereign rights of every human being walking the planet. Is there a remedy for this? Yes, but the question is not that of existence, but rather of the will of men in sufficient proportions to make real a better world, a free world. Thus far, that question has met with the grim answer, and yet hope is not quite lost, if it be ever so skinny from lack of nourishment. We, the tall-standing Freemen of the world may yet bring some harrow to the tyrannies that beset every man, including the tyrants, for they are as much imprisoned by their own schemes as are the rest of us.
I therefore implore ye of good character and who love freedom truly and completely, to spread the word and to help us all by endeavoring to bring to clarity the very words that underpin our lives in such a manner as to give better effect to the thoughts of free men the world over. Help us form the ironclad framework of conceptual understanding such that those who yearn for something better from this world are gifted with the tools necessary for the affect of change to those ends.
We do not have to live as chattel, serfs, prisoners. Theye can be stopped. Stopping Themme is not even particularly difficult - not if you have the knowledge in numbers, coupled with the drive to achieve the worthy goal of freedom in our lifetimes. It is the will to the goal, which in turn is driven by sufficient and proper understanding, that is the trick here. We are eight billion mostly ignorant souls, generationally hoodwinked by those who presume to reign over us as lords. The only way out, the only first step, is realization and the thirst to learn the greater truth of what it means to live properly amid one's fellow souls.
May the hunger for freedom grow and intensify such that we all begin to help one another, rather than suspect, despise, dismiss, and even hate our brethren. It is precisely that division between us that keeps the Tyrant on his throne, free to dictate as he might please. Are we going to allow this to continue? I pray we do not.
So long for now, and may the spirit of freedom bring its blessings upon you.
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
The Three Ls
I propose to coin yet another new term for humanity, the ideas of which I trust shall be clear.
Ladies and gents, may I introduce the Three Ls, or 3Ls for brevity's sake:
Ladies and gents, may I introduce the Three Ls, or 3Ls for brevity's sake:
- Life
- Limb
- Liberty
What, you may ask, do these three notions, clustered in some sense as a group, represent?
The answer is simple: together, the form the very basis of all human claims to life. I have been in the habit of late of referring to a man's life as his "First Property". This wording reinforces the notion of a man's life as his own possession and not that of any other man, save by sound and valid agreement.
Limb, the physical embodiment of a man, is an integral part of his First Property, without which said property could not continue on this earthly plane. The threat of destruction in toto is only one concern a man has for Limb, partial destruction through maiming or its literal expropriation into a slave condition, relevantly at the hands of his fellow men, being the other two great concerns regarding Limb.
His Liberty completes the Triad or Trinity of a man's fundamental moral constitution, that arising from the very nature of his being, particularly significant in the context of the company of his fellows.
And there you have it - the very basis of men as individuals expressed in truth that is so obvious to unclouded minds as to be nearly absurd in its mention. And yet, the mind of the modern man is so very clouded that someone finds himself compelled to make such mentions as these regarding their very existence, as well as their individual natures, and the nature of their interrelations.
I bid you consider the 3Ls, and further mull what they mean to you and those you love. Ponder what it means when the respect of them is thrown to the wayside by one's fellow men. Think of what the world of men becomes when respect by one man for his fellows dissipates into the mists, unleashing every wild impulse he may have such that he makes no mind of the resulting violations. Now imagine into what that translates when one such man becomes legions of men.
If your considerations prove vexatious and the source of grave concern, then I will consider myself as having accomplished at least one of my objectives in this writing.
Be well, be free, and as always, please accept my best wishes.
Limb, the physical embodiment of a man, is an integral part of his First Property, without which said property could not continue on this earthly plane. The threat of destruction in toto is only one concern a man has for Limb, partial destruction through maiming or its literal expropriation into a slave condition, relevantly at the hands of his fellow men, being the other two great concerns regarding Limb.
His Liberty completes the Triad or Trinity of a man's fundamental moral constitution, that arising from the very nature of his being, particularly significant in the context of the company of his fellows.
And there you have it - the very basis of men as individuals expressed in truth that is so obvious to unclouded minds as to be nearly absurd in its mention. And yet, the mind of the modern man is so very clouded that someone finds himself compelled to make such mentions as these regarding their very existence, as well as their individual natures, and the nature of their interrelations.
I bid you consider the 3Ls, and further mull what they mean to you and those you love. Ponder what it means when the respect of them is thrown to the wayside by one's fellow men. Think of what the world of men becomes when respect by one man for his fellows dissipates into the mists, unleashing every wild impulse he may have such that he makes no mind of the resulting violations. Now imagine into what that translates when one such man becomes legions of men.
If your considerations prove vexatious and the source of grave concern, then I will consider myself as having accomplished at least one of my objectives in this writing.
Be well, be free, and as always, please accept my best wishes.
Sunday, May 26, 2019
I Bet They Never Saw This Coming
This is my first non-philosophical post. It will not become my habit to post about current political reality, but this time I just feel the desire to do so. I will be brief.
The political stooges of the so-called "left" now nervously circle one another, eyes peeled for the right opportunity to turn cannibal.
I bet not a single one of them thought they'd be facing this possibility the moment they made their turn toward treachery. And yet, it would appear that here they now stand, wondering whether it will be to their distinct advantage during sentencing to have those in whose hands justice rests, know that they were the first to do the "right" thing. The conundrum must be crushing for them.
Consider the media on the one hand, that seem to be suggesting that the first man to turn on the rest with vital testimony will enjoy punishments far reduced in comparison with the rest, or may even enjoy immunity from prosecution - the proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card.
On the other hand, there is little doubt that the likes of Clinton, or whoever it is that is the liaison between them and the real power, the veiled power, is shrieking at them to hang together in the spirit of not hanging separately.
I cannot imagine that these people are sleeping particularly well these days with such possibilities and storming uncertainty sloshing around in their mostly empty skulls.
On the one hand, the mind reels at the prospect that America may be taking a step backwards in the direction of a state that might actually bespeak some hints of freedom. On the other, there rises the spectre of just another cult going wildly wrong in the vein we remember as a Soviet Union or Red China.
Where politics are concerned, seemingly good things can turn very bad in a heartbeat. Therefore, decide on what it is you want in terms of freedom and make sure you are heard, no matter the cost.
Be well, thanks for reading, and as always, please accept my best wishes.
The political stooges of the so-called "left" now nervously circle one another, eyes peeled for the right opportunity to turn cannibal.
I bet not a single one of them thought they'd be facing this possibility the moment they made their turn toward treachery. And yet, it would appear that here they now stand, wondering whether it will be to their distinct advantage during sentencing to have those in whose hands justice rests, know that they were the first to do the "right" thing. The conundrum must be crushing for them.
Consider the media on the one hand, that seem to be suggesting that the first man to turn on the rest with vital testimony will enjoy punishments far reduced in comparison with the rest, or may even enjoy immunity from prosecution - the proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card.
On the other hand, there is little doubt that the likes of Clinton, or whoever it is that is the liaison between them and the real power, the veiled power, is shrieking at them to hang together in the spirit of not hanging separately.
I cannot imagine that these people are sleeping particularly well these days with such possibilities and storming uncertainty sloshing around in their mostly empty skulls.
On the one hand, the mind reels at the prospect that America may be taking a step backwards in the direction of a state that might actually bespeak some hints of freedom. On the other, there rises the spectre of just another cult going wildly wrong in the vein we remember as a Soviet Union or Red China.
Where politics are concerned, seemingly good things can turn very bad in a heartbeat. Therefore, decide on what it is you want in terms of freedom and make sure you are heard, no matter the cost.
Be well, thanks for reading, and as always, please accept my best wishes.
Monday, May 20, 2019
Banning Abortion Is Not A Solution
Banning abortion is not the answer.
Teach girls to keep their legs closed and to take all reasonable precautions because boys do not become pregnant.
Teach boys to be gentlemen and to stand responsibly for their choices and the acts that follow therefrom.
Not saying we have to go puritan - very much the opposite. But proper behavior born of proper attitudes begets the better result, which is the diminution of unwanted pregnancy, which in turn reduces the "need" for abortions commensurately.
Abortion is a horror. That so many women get themselves cut for the manifold and lousy reasons they so often do, speaks to the mindsets of people, first and foremost.
When women are sound in their minds and souls, they respect themselves and cherish that which comes to grow within them. Not wanting such a thing at any given time leads them to cautions that they cannot count on anyone else to take on their behalves.
Sadly, they see this as trespass upon their rights, rather than enlightened self-interest.
To claim that a woman has no right to kill the sacred within herself is the product of the brand of cowardice that has lead the world to its current state of decay. I understand it is the product of good intentions and I am in no way saying that abortion is good, but freedom is scary and rotten as often as it is beautiful and exhilarating, if not more often so.
Banning abortion is not the answer anymore than banning drugs has made those problems go away.
Generally speaking, free men do not ban, for doing so invalidly is an act of trespass born of personal and cultural corruption. It is the mark of people who want something without cost, representing the lowest and most deeply wretched state of the human animal.
Someone recently wrote to me that "you can't unring the bell", in reference to the finality of removing life from another being. I completely agree with them, but that fact does not justify enslaving one's fellows, no matter how good the intentions, recalling that such good intentions count for nothing at the end of the day.
This is precisely how people come to reject freedom. They want the attractive bits, but do not accept those that are not quite so pleasing, which I must remind people is the price that is associated with actually being free. That is why I call it "pretty slavery", which is nothing better than human corruption made manifest in the acceptance only of that which pleases, rejecting all that which does not. Freedom does not work that way.
In this precise sense, the so-called "right" (conservatives, or whatever you wish to call them) is no different from the so-called "left": they each want something for nothing. That they want different things is irrelevant to the fundamental issue and question of freedom.
Lefties want to be able to put their naughty bits anywhere they please, boys calling themselves girls, and all manner of other wildly morbid insanity. Conservatives are, admittedly, far and away better in this regard - this is not validly arguable - and yet they are equally willing to enslave their fellows by denying those things to which all are by right entitled. In this particular instance they think they are entitled to prevent a woman from terminating a pregnancy. Conversely, they feel entitled to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term. This is pure evil every bit as much as is a woman's casual desire to "get rid of it".
People need to learn to mind their own business. Freedom is at least as full of horror as it is wonder and exhilaration. People want the latter, and nothing to do with the former. So long as that remains the case, they will not be free no matter how fancily they may lie to themselves and each other.
Teach girls to keep their legs closed and to take all reasonable precautions because boys do not become pregnant.
Teach boys to be gentlemen and to stand responsibly for their choices and the acts that follow therefrom.
Not saying we have to go puritan - very much the opposite. But proper behavior born of proper attitudes begets the better result, which is the diminution of unwanted pregnancy, which in turn reduces the "need" for abortions commensurately.
Abortion is a horror. That so many women get themselves cut for the manifold and lousy reasons they so often do, speaks to the mindsets of people, first and foremost.
When women are sound in their minds and souls, they respect themselves and cherish that which comes to grow within them. Not wanting such a thing at any given time leads them to cautions that they cannot count on anyone else to take on their behalves.
Sadly, they see this as trespass upon their rights, rather than enlightened self-interest.
To claim that a woman has no right to kill the sacred within herself is the product of the brand of cowardice that has lead the world to its current state of decay. I understand it is the product of good intentions and I am in no way saying that abortion is good, but freedom is scary and rotten as often as it is beautiful and exhilarating, if not more often so.
Banning abortion is not the answer anymore than banning drugs has made those problems go away.
Generally speaking, free men do not ban, for doing so invalidly is an act of trespass born of personal and cultural corruption. It is the mark of people who want something without cost, representing the lowest and most deeply wretched state of the human animal.
Someone recently wrote to me that "you can't unring the bell", in reference to the finality of removing life from another being. I completely agree with them, but that fact does not justify enslaving one's fellows, no matter how good the intentions, recalling that such good intentions count for nothing at the end of the day.
This is precisely how people come to reject freedom. They want the attractive bits, but do not accept those that are not quite so pleasing, which I must remind people is the price that is associated with actually being free. That is why I call it "pretty slavery", which is nothing better than human corruption made manifest in the acceptance only of that which pleases, rejecting all that which does not. Freedom does not work that way.
In this precise sense, the so-called "right" (conservatives, or whatever you wish to call them) is no different from the so-called "left": they each want something for nothing. That they want different things is irrelevant to the fundamental issue and question of freedom.
Lefties want to be able to put their naughty bits anywhere they please, boys calling themselves girls, and all manner of other wildly morbid insanity. Conservatives are, admittedly, far and away better in this regard - this is not validly arguable - and yet they are equally willing to enslave their fellows by denying those things to which all are by right entitled. In this particular instance they think they are entitled to prevent a woman from terminating a pregnancy. Conversely, they feel entitled to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term. This is pure evil every bit as much as is a woman's casual desire to "get rid of it".
People need to learn to mind their own business. Freedom is at least as full of horror as it is wonder and exhilaration. People want the latter, and nothing to do with the former. So long as that remains the case, they will not be free no matter how fancily they may lie to themselves and each other.
If those horrors include women aborting their pregnancies, then we as free men must accept it as fact at any given moment. The solution, once again, is not to ban the act, but to train our children to better virtue.
When girls become responsible for their choices and boys follow suit in at least equal measure, then we will begin to see the changes that we who respect life wish to see.
And from a purely practical standpoint, we must acknowledge that we will never stop women from becoming un-pregnant. There are so many ways of terminating a pregnancy, an iodine-soaked rag inserted into the vagina being but one very effective means, that we will never prevent any woman from ridding herself of the unwanted condition.
There are those who will say that we can, in fact, enforce a ban. Now I ask you to think about what that would actually mean. The reductio ad absurdum there would see the state inside the pants of every woman in the land, constantly checking for a state of pregnancy. Is this what we want? I ask because this is precisely what we might get because that is what would be required, particularly in the likely case of states adopting a "zero-tolerance" policy. All a young girl has to do is stop eating for a week and she will miscarry. What then? Shall we force feed her? Ask her daily why she is not eating and force her to have a pelvic examination?
Many will say that this is extreme and would never happen. People also said that Hitler would fade away in time. Well sure, he did just that, but not until after having destroyed an entire continent.
For the third time I must repeat that which bears repetition: banning abortion is not a solution, but rather an excuse to further state power and the tyranny of some men over the rest. Show your children the better way and train them to it. It is the far more difficult path to better living - of that there can be no doubt - but it is the way that better ensures the liberty of humanity, moving forward.
Bans are the great cop-out for people who do not want to be bothered with the hassle and demands of doing something correctly, because that requires output of effort by the individual with no guarantee of results, both of which are required of men who purport to being free.
Treading the path of freedom is always the most difficult. It is also always the most rewarding, the many pitfalls and deep costs notwithstanding.
Once again, I thank you for keeping such good company with me.
Please accept my best wishes in return.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Secfree: A Biggest Lie
I have found it most curious to observe the nearly universal acceptance of one of the most poisonous of the tacit assumptions upon which humans operate. It is that of the false dichotomy of security and freedom. I will henceforth refer to this as the "Secfree" fallacy, an ultimate lie that says one must choose between freedom and security. Secfree has enabled tyrants of every stripe to cow vast populations into accepting their caprice. Continuing as standard practice even today, few if any of the other tools in the tyrant's bag of tricks can boast of what appears to be a nearly perfect record of success, playing on the mid-brain fear of the individual that if they do not waive just a "smidge" of their freedoms, the boogieman is going to get them and do terrible, unspeakable things.
Secfree may in fact be the ultimate zero-sum belief.
However, as with so many other fallacies and outright lies, once exposed to the withering light of anything better than the most carelessly casual examination, the true nature of Secfree comes into sharp focus.
One of the bases upon which Secfree's success is founded is the deeply tacit assumption that there exists such a thing as a guaranty of security. As with so many other things in life, security is a purely statistical creature, which is to say that it is a game of numbers; of probabilities; likelihoods that some event will happen, or not. Anyone coming to another with smiles, offered handshakes, and promises of safety is either dangerously ignorant of the fundamental nature of life, psychotic as a pineapple, or is selling a bill of goods. Most often, my vote is for the latter.
Because of this nature, security can only be offered as a probability measure. A great and all-powerful "state" can do nothing to protect you when a twenty-mile long asteroid is bearing down upon one's head at ten miles per second. In such a circumstance, you and likely everyone you know is doomed. The same is true of far more mundane threats such as the sick and desperate junkie who is going to have your wallet, no matter what. Hellbent and deciding he will brook no resistance, such a man poses a threat against which no "state" or agent thereof may offer guaranty.
The old saw that says "feces happens" is perennially true. Nobody is able to guarantee anyone security, and yet there are those who are always willing to make the promise in any case. It should be borne in mind that regardless of the conscious reasons for making such promises, fair or foul, at the unconscious level there is always to be found the nut for he who does the promising: power over his fellows, willingly given.
Once the trick that is the exchange of freedom for a vaporous lie is discovered, recognized, accepted as real, and its nature understood, it quickly becomes clear that the one thing all Secfree peddlers seek, whether they are aware or will otherwise admit, is the power that the exchange brings to their pockets. It is human relations played as a strict zero-sum where "heads I win; tails you lose."
The other end of the exchange is easily understood for what it is: people want what they want, and are most often willing to sell their souls in order to have it no matter how absurd, self-defeating, and destructive the choice to procure may prove, even prima facie, often raining those results down upon those around them as well. The average man, what we may call the "Meaner", is sufficiently corrupted with fear and avarice that he will readily find a way to rationalize the destruction of his fellows for the sake of getting what he wants, in this case his hallowed security. The list of excuses people offer themselves to justify and excuse the ghastly things they allow to be done in their names is depressingly long, shameful, and utterly devoid of validity. The Meaner will often go so far as to decide that those who suffered for his choices probably deserved it anyway. Some humans.
Secfree results in the willful handing over of one's sacred birthright in exchange for the privilege of being able to lie to oneself that they are now safe. It is perhaps the most hideous absurdity of them all, no different in effect to taking one's life-savings in cash and setting to it gasoline and a lit match.
The deep irony there is this: freedom is the condition of human existence that offers the best numbers in the game of chance that we call "security". It may seem counter intuitive to a great many people, but once again the most meager effort to honestly dope out the logic chain demonstrates how it is true. A single, simple example, should provide most with enough on which to go such that they are able to continue asking the right questions.
For the sake of "security", the Secfree peddlers constantly spew the bait that we must eliminate guns because no civil society needs or wants them, and that if you give up your firearms, you will become safe. This, of course, is a bald-faced lie of pure brass. History has proven without any wiggle room for argument that no matter how strictly anything may be prohibited, no matter how draconian the punishments for non-compliance, there will always be those who can and will violate the prohibition, sometimes with nefarious intent. Subscribers to Secfree most often come to the defense of gun prohibition with the absurdly false argument that we don't need guns because police will see to our defense. In ever increasing measure, it is police who pose the greatest and most ubiquitous threats to our safety. Such irony.
Imagine the mugger, knife in hand, threatens your life if you do not give him the wallet. Sure, you could hand it over and count on his promise that he won't kill the only witness to his high crime, but do you really want to place the trust of your life, your First Property, into the hands of one willing to rob you in this manner? Will covertly dialing the police via E911 result in your deliverance from danger and back into the bosom of your beloved safety? As an old saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." On average, the best guarantor of one's safety is himself because third party defenders rarely appear out of thin-air and, when push comes to shove, may decide not to fight on your behalf because they, too, want to go home to their families at night.
Now consider the free society where men are at their leisure to arm themselves in anticipation of the unanticipated. When the mugger announces himself, you are free to hand it over if that is what you wish, perhaps even trusting your assailant will leave you in peace in your belief that a wallet and its contents are not worth killing someone. Or you may produce your weapon, leaving you the options of holding the criminal at bay either until police arrive, or you can affect your escape. Finally, in the case where Mr. Mugger decides to go for broke, you have at least the outside chance of shooting him down pursuant to the preservation of the life to which you hold just and valid title. It is clear that your menu of choice is far and away better when you are free, versus being subjugated under the rubric of Secfree.
Freedom provides a far greater options to everyone, with the recognition that in life nothing is guaranteed, most especially safety from harm. But reasonable assurances can be validly made in that respect, once again with freedom providing the greatest allowances for choice such that each individual may provide for himself as his abilities and valid means may enable him, and his predilections enjoin. One man chooses the gun, while another may decide upon a bodyguard, while others are free to remain content to ignore such issues altogether, confident that no evil shall ever befall them.
Freedom is not the mutually exclusive antagonist of security: it is security's greatest hope for realization.
It is my hope that people will consider what I have written here with an open mind, suspending both disbelief and hard feelings, as well as any apprehensions they may experience at the thought of being responsible for their own safety and security in what I believe we can all agree is a world where "authorities" are powerless to render aid to those in need. Do yourselves a great favor and take the plunge in a place of comfort such that you feel able to venture beyond your deeply held assumptions about such matters, and take a walk on the wild side.
My promise to you is that you can only benefit from this, regardless of outcome. And if perchance you feel the uncomfortable tingling that new truths often bring to the fringes of one's awareness, be brave and press onward, and deeply into it. Explore it as fully as you are able, no matter how scary or otherwise objectionable you may find it because I further promise that if you do this, you may come to a life altering moment because the more deeply and stridently one feels that objection, the more likely it becomes that the truth engendered there is important, the change to which most often results in healthy transformation. Always consider the possibility that in the end you may become a better and greater human being for it. At worst, you have confirmed your presently held beliefs and may at least then speak on such matters with better authority.
As always, please accept my best wishes.
Secfree may in fact be the ultimate zero-sum belief.
However, as with so many other fallacies and outright lies, once exposed to the withering light of anything better than the most carelessly casual examination, the true nature of Secfree comes into sharp focus.
One of the bases upon which Secfree's success is founded is the deeply tacit assumption that there exists such a thing as a guaranty of security. As with so many other things in life, security is a purely statistical creature, which is to say that it is a game of numbers; of probabilities; likelihoods that some event will happen, or not. Anyone coming to another with smiles, offered handshakes, and promises of safety is either dangerously ignorant of the fundamental nature of life, psychotic as a pineapple, or is selling a bill of goods. Most often, my vote is for the latter.
Because of this nature, security can only be offered as a probability measure. A great and all-powerful "state" can do nothing to protect you when a twenty-mile long asteroid is bearing down upon one's head at ten miles per second. In such a circumstance, you and likely everyone you know is doomed. The same is true of far more mundane threats such as the sick and desperate junkie who is going to have your wallet, no matter what. Hellbent and deciding he will brook no resistance, such a man poses a threat against which no "state" or agent thereof may offer guaranty.
The old saw that says "feces happens" is perennially true. Nobody is able to guarantee anyone security, and yet there are those who are always willing to make the promise in any case. It should be borne in mind that regardless of the conscious reasons for making such promises, fair or foul, at the unconscious level there is always to be found the nut for he who does the promising: power over his fellows, willingly given.
Once the trick that is the exchange of freedom for a vaporous lie is discovered, recognized, accepted as real, and its nature understood, it quickly becomes clear that the one thing all Secfree peddlers seek, whether they are aware or will otherwise admit, is the power that the exchange brings to their pockets. It is human relations played as a strict zero-sum where "heads I win; tails you lose."
The other end of the exchange is easily understood for what it is: people want what they want, and are most often willing to sell their souls in order to have it no matter how absurd, self-defeating, and destructive the choice to procure may prove, even prima facie, often raining those results down upon those around them as well. The average man, what we may call the "Meaner", is sufficiently corrupted with fear and avarice that he will readily find a way to rationalize the destruction of his fellows for the sake of getting what he wants, in this case his hallowed security. The list of excuses people offer themselves to justify and excuse the ghastly things they allow to be done in their names is depressingly long, shameful, and utterly devoid of validity. The Meaner will often go so far as to decide that those who suffered for his choices probably deserved it anyway. Some humans.
Secfree results in the willful handing over of one's sacred birthright in exchange for the privilege of being able to lie to oneself that they are now safe. It is perhaps the most hideous absurdity of them all, no different in effect to taking one's life-savings in cash and setting to it gasoline and a lit match.
The deep irony there is this: freedom is the condition of human existence that offers the best numbers in the game of chance that we call "security". It may seem counter intuitive to a great many people, but once again the most meager effort to honestly dope out the logic chain demonstrates how it is true. A single, simple example, should provide most with enough on which to go such that they are able to continue asking the right questions.
For the sake of "security", the Secfree peddlers constantly spew the bait that we must eliminate guns because no civil society needs or wants them, and that if you give up your firearms, you will become safe. This, of course, is a bald-faced lie of pure brass. History has proven without any wiggle room for argument that no matter how strictly anything may be prohibited, no matter how draconian the punishments for non-compliance, there will always be those who can and will violate the prohibition, sometimes with nefarious intent. Subscribers to Secfree most often come to the defense of gun prohibition with the absurdly false argument that we don't need guns because police will see to our defense. In ever increasing measure, it is police who pose the greatest and most ubiquitous threats to our safety. Such irony.
Imagine the mugger, knife in hand, threatens your life if you do not give him the wallet. Sure, you could hand it over and count on his promise that he won't kill the only witness to his high crime, but do you really want to place the trust of your life, your First Property, into the hands of one willing to rob you in this manner? Will covertly dialing the police via E911 result in your deliverance from danger and back into the bosom of your beloved safety? As an old saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." On average, the best guarantor of one's safety is himself because third party defenders rarely appear out of thin-air and, when push comes to shove, may decide not to fight on your behalf because they, too, want to go home to their families at night.
Now consider the free society where men are at their leisure to arm themselves in anticipation of the unanticipated. When the mugger announces himself, you are free to hand it over if that is what you wish, perhaps even trusting your assailant will leave you in peace in your belief that a wallet and its contents are not worth killing someone. Or you may produce your weapon, leaving you the options of holding the criminal at bay either until police arrive, or you can affect your escape. Finally, in the case where Mr. Mugger decides to go for broke, you have at least the outside chance of shooting him down pursuant to the preservation of the life to which you hold just and valid title. It is clear that your menu of choice is far and away better when you are free, versus being subjugated under the rubric of Secfree.
Freedom provides a far greater options to everyone, with the recognition that in life nothing is guaranteed, most especially safety from harm. But reasonable assurances can be validly made in that respect, once again with freedom providing the greatest allowances for choice such that each individual may provide for himself as his abilities and valid means may enable him, and his predilections enjoin. One man chooses the gun, while another may decide upon a bodyguard, while others are free to remain content to ignore such issues altogether, confident that no evil shall ever befall them.
Freedom is not the mutually exclusive antagonist of security: it is security's greatest hope for realization.
It is my hope that people will consider what I have written here with an open mind, suspending both disbelief and hard feelings, as well as any apprehensions they may experience at the thought of being responsible for their own safety and security in what I believe we can all agree is a world where "authorities" are powerless to render aid to those in need. Do yourselves a great favor and take the plunge in a place of comfort such that you feel able to venture beyond your deeply held assumptions about such matters, and take a walk on the wild side.
My promise to you is that you can only benefit from this, regardless of outcome. And if perchance you feel the uncomfortable tingling that new truths often bring to the fringes of one's awareness, be brave and press onward, and deeply into it. Explore it as fully as you are able, no matter how scary or otherwise objectionable you may find it because I further promise that if you do this, you may come to a life altering moment because the more deeply and stridently one feels that objection, the more likely it becomes that the truth engendered there is important, the change to which most often results in healthy transformation. Always consider the possibility that in the end you may become a better and greater human being for it. At worst, you have confirmed your presently held beliefs and may at least then speak on such matters with better authority.
As always, please accept my best wishes.
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Some New Rules For Police
Given how police tend to run amok, always dangerously and often murderously, it is clear that we the people, those to whom all cops swear an oath of fealty and faithful service, are obliged to set the conditions under which police may act, including the metes and bounds of such action, as well as the penalties they shall face in cases where they violate their oaths.
The new rules:
1. If a death occurs at police hands, all cops with immediate involvement are instantly put on unpaid leave for not less than one year, no exceptions. Any cop found to have been unjustifiably culpable for an on-duty death, his career is terminated as of the date of the injury event that lead to it. Beyond any criminal penalties that may be incurred, in addition the terminated cop may never again become a sworn agent for any establishment, state or federal. Furthermore, he is barred from holding any other government position, whether elected, appointed, hired, or contracted. These banishments are to stand for the remainder of the debarred party's life.
2. Any act of violence in which a cop has involvement, directly or otherwise, automatically places him off duty without pay until an investigation is conducted and concludes that he acted within acceptable limits. All such investigations are to be conducted by independent third parties; police are never to be allowed to investigate themselves.
3. Upon the occurrence of violent action, the officer in question is to be placed into an isolation cell and held without communication until the investigative body is convened and is ready to hear testimony. No lawyers are allowed to represent the officer. An isolated officer is to have no access to any material objects whatsoever, except food and water. They are debarred access to writing paraphernalia, electronic or otherwise. All officers within 500 feet proximity to the officer in question are to have their video recorders turned on. If the have no such device, they are to leave the scene immediately and report to their headquarters. Failure in either case shall place the officers so failing on immediate termination with loss of all benefits and retirement, and they shall become lifetime-ineligible for any job with any government agency as per section one. They shall furthermore face criminal charges by special prosecutor with a minimum sentence of one year in state prison, general population, and up to three years.
4. All evidence of police action is to be presented to a grand jury. No police involvement beyond testimony is to be allowed, nor are any attorneys from any agency, public or private, to be admitted to such proceedings except as observers.
5. Any invocation of the Fifth Amendment by an officer under such investigation results in automatic dismissal of the officer and life-long banishments. per section one The investigative panel is restricted in its questioning to relevant queries only. Any off-topic questions shall place the questioner in peril of felony charges for which the minimum sentence shall be one year in state prison, general population.
6. Any police convicted of committing murder while on duty shall be automatically sentenced to death, sentence to be carried out within 4 hours of the failure of the final appeal. In any case where sentence is overturned, sentence shall be commuted to life in prison without possibility of parole, in general population. No exceptions.
7. Every police department shall have in place an Oversight Board comprised of non-police members. Board members will tenure for two years with no salary and may have no connection to police, whether through family, business, or any other avenue. Upon the good conclusion of the term of service, the member will be ineligible to serve again for 5 years. Members shall serve only upon sworn oath of duty and a surety bond, to be held in trust by a reliable third party that is not a governmental agency. Members shall have full access to any and all police documents, communiqués, and all other information related to operations, occurrences, officer data, policies, and so forth.
9. Any willful failure by a Board member to cooperate in such investigations shall result in immediate dismissal from the Board and the ineligibility to serve again for the remainder of the dismissed party's life on any such Board and shall be subject to the banishments of section one. Barring extraordinary extenuating circumstances, such failures shall be taken as a prima facie admission of having committed a felony in violation of sworn oath, and shall result in not less than one year in prison per count, general population.
10. The results of investigations of board members may result in criminal charges being brought in the case where criminal action has been established. Such charges are to be handed to a special prosecutor. Local prosecutors shall be prohibited from pursuing such matters. In the event of a special prosecutor's failure to fulfill his duty to pursue criminal charges in a proper and timely manner, his duties shall be stripped and bestowed upon another. A citizen's petition of 200 signatures or 20% of the community population, whichever is smaller, demanding the dismissal of the special prosecutor for cause, where such relates to prosecutorial misconduct of any sort, including but not limited to vigor, shall be granted upon establishment with a new prosecutor assigned to the task. The outgoing prosecutor shall be subject to investigation by both public and private parties with full exposure for any and all torts, equity failures, and criminal liabilities attaching to the failure of duty. All relevant materials and information relating to the investigations for which the defrocked special prosecutor was liable are to be made available to all investigators, failure to do so constituting for any reason whatsoever to constitute a class-A felony for which each count of conviction shall bring not less than ten (10) years at hard labor or solitary confinement.
11. The purpose of the oversight Board shall be to scrutinize and investigate all police operations, as well as department policy and personnel performance from chief downward. Department policy shall become effective only upon the approval of the Board, said Board being fully, utterly, and personally accountable to the members of the community they represent. The Board shall have the authority to investigate any and all police activities including documentation such as internal reports. They shall have supervised access to all evidence relating to criminal investigations, open or closed. Any conflicts of interest between a Board member and an open police investigation shall disqualify that Board member from investigations of police conduct.
12. The Board shall have the authority to dismiss any member of the police department for cause, pursuant to and in accord with standard guidelines. The officers in question shall have no recourse, but a citizen's petition of 100 signatures or 34% of a community's population, whichever is larger, calling for further examination of the Board's dismissal shall be granted and the decision reconsidered for possible errors in judgment, evidence, etc.
13. The destruction of any evidence relating to a police-involved incident, regardless of nature of said incident or whether said evidence is damning or exculpatory, shall constitute a class-A felony breach of the Public Trust, shall result in mandatory charges, and shall be punished with not less than five years imprisonment per count, general population.
14. Any and all convictions resulting from breaches of the Public Trust by any government official, employee, or contractor, will result in the disparagement of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for not less than five years after lapse of sentence, no exceptions.
This is how we begin to regain control over police who, at this time, have control over us. Righteous men who choose this profession should have no problem with any of this. The rest... they are most welcome to pursue employment better suited to their characters, such as pushing a broom or scraping road kill off the county byways.
If there is any place where "zero tolerance" may be said to make the least sense, this would be it.
The new rules:
1. If a death occurs at police hands, all cops with immediate involvement are instantly put on unpaid leave for not less than one year, no exceptions. Any cop found to have been unjustifiably culpable for an on-duty death, his career is terminated as of the date of the injury event that lead to it. Beyond any criminal penalties that may be incurred, in addition the terminated cop may never again become a sworn agent for any establishment, state or federal. Furthermore, he is barred from holding any other government position, whether elected, appointed, hired, or contracted. These banishments are to stand for the remainder of the debarred party's life.
2. Any act of violence in which a cop has involvement, directly or otherwise, automatically places him off duty without pay until an investigation is conducted and concludes that he acted within acceptable limits. All such investigations are to be conducted by independent third parties; police are never to be allowed to investigate themselves.
3. Upon the occurrence of violent action, the officer in question is to be placed into an isolation cell and held without communication until the investigative body is convened and is ready to hear testimony. No lawyers are allowed to represent the officer. An isolated officer is to have no access to any material objects whatsoever, except food and water. They are debarred access to writing paraphernalia, electronic or otherwise. All officers within 500 feet proximity to the officer in question are to have their video recorders turned on. If the have no such device, they are to leave the scene immediately and report to their headquarters. Failure in either case shall place the officers so failing on immediate termination with loss of all benefits and retirement, and they shall become lifetime-ineligible for any job with any government agency as per section one. They shall furthermore face criminal charges by special prosecutor with a minimum sentence of one year in state prison, general population, and up to three years.
4. All evidence of police action is to be presented to a grand jury. No police involvement beyond testimony is to be allowed, nor are any attorneys from any agency, public or private, to be admitted to such proceedings except as observers.
5. Any invocation of the Fifth Amendment by an officer under such investigation results in automatic dismissal of the officer and life-long banishments. per section one The investigative panel is restricted in its questioning to relevant queries only. Any off-topic questions shall place the questioner in peril of felony charges for which the minimum sentence shall be one year in state prison, general population.
6. Any police convicted of committing murder while on duty shall be automatically sentenced to death, sentence to be carried out within 4 hours of the failure of the final appeal. In any case where sentence is overturned, sentence shall be commuted to life in prison without possibility of parole, in general population. No exceptions.
7. Every police department shall have in place an Oversight Board comprised of non-police members. Board members will tenure for two years with no salary and may have no connection to police, whether through family, business, or any other avenue. Upon the good conclusion of the term of service, the member will be ineligible to serve again for 5 years. Members shall serve only upon sworn oath of duty and a surety bond, to be held in trust by a reliable third party that is not a governmental agency. Members shall have full access to any and all police documents, communiqués, and all other information related to operations, occurrences, officer data, policies, and so forth.
8. Any behavior by Board members in violation of their sworn oaths of duty shall be investigated by an external agency. In addition, a citizens' petition for such an investigation, having either at least fifty signatures or a number representing 10% or more of the community's population, whichever is smaller, shall bring such investigations to bear. There shall be no governmental power to stop or otherwise thwart or interfere with such an investigation. Any attempts to interfere with such an investigation by any government official, whether elected, appointed, employed, assigned, or otherwise demonstrated by preponderance of evidence as being an agent of said government, shall themselves face felony charges, the conviction pursuant to which shall result in not less than five years at hard labor per count.
9. Any willful failure by a Board member to cooperate in such investigations shall result in immediate dismissal from the Board and the ineligibility to serve again for the remainder of the dismissed party's life on any such Board and shall be subject to the banishments of section one. Barring extraordinary extenuating circumstances, such failures shall be taken as a prima facie admission of having committed a felony in violation of sworn oath, and shall result in not less than one year in prison per count, general population.
10. The results of investigations of board members may result in criminal charges being brought in the case where criminal action has been established. Such charges are to be handed to a special prosecutor. Local prosecutors shall be prohibited from pursuing such matters. In the event of a special prosecutor's failure to fulfill his duty to pursue criminal charges in a proper and timely manner, his duties shall be stripped and bestowed upon another. A citizen's petition of 200 signatures or 20% of the community population, whichever is smaller, demanding the dismissal of the special prosecutor for cause, where such relates to prosecutorial misconduct of any sort, including but not limited to vigor, shall be granted upon establishment with a new prosecutor assigned to the task. The outgoing prosecutor shall be subject to investigation by both public and private parties with full exposure for any and all torts, equity failures, and criminal liabilities attaching to the failure of duty. All relevant materials and information relating to the investigations for which the defrocked special prosecutor was liable are to be made available to all investigators, failure to do so constituting for any reason whatsoever to constitute a class-A felony for which each count of conviction shall bring not less than ten (10) years at hard labor or solitary confinement.
11. The purpose of the oversight Board shall be to scrutinize and investigate all police operations, as well as department policy and personnel performance from chief downward. Department policy shall become effective only upon the approval of the Board, said Board being fully, utterly, and personally accountable to the members of the community they represent. The Board shall have the authority to investigate any and all police activities including documentation such as internal reports. They shall have supervised access to all evidence relating to criminal investigations, open or closed. Any conflicts of interest between a Board member and an open police investigation shall disqualify that Board member from investigations of police conduct.
12. The Board shall have the authority to dismiss any member of the police department for cause, pursuant to and in accord with standard guidelines. The officers in question shall have no recourse, but a citizen's petition of 100 signatures or 34% of a community's population, whichever is larger, calling for further examination of the Board's dismissal shall be granted and the decision reconsidered for possible errors in judgment, evidence, etc.
13. The destruction of any evidence relating to a police-involved incident, regardless of nature of said incident or whether said evidence is damning or exculpatory, shall constitute a class-A felony breach of the Public Trust, shall result in mandatory charges, and shall be punished with not less than five years imprisonment per count, general population.
14. Any and all convictions resulting from breaches of the Public Trust by any government official, employee, or contractor, will result in the disparagement of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for not less than five years after lapse of sentence, no exceptions.
This is how we begin to regain control over police who, at this time, have control over us. Righteous men who choose this profession should have no problem with any of this. The rest... they are most welcome to pursue employment better suited to their characters, such as pushing a broom or scraping road kill off the county byways.
If there is any place where "zero tolerance" may be said to make the least sense, this would be it.
As always, please accept my best wishes.
Monday, March 4, 2019
The Right To Secede
In recent years, many who ID as "liberty lovers" have been making much speak of the idea of secession. The notion, while in itself valid, has to my knowledge not been discussed as to the particulars insofar as what it means in practice. What does it mean to "secede"? As always, the dictionary should be our first friend in establishing the semantic baseline from which we shall operate.
Worcester's Dictionary of 1840:
Oxford Etymological Dictionary:
Withdrawal is the essences of secession. The freedom to withdraw remains a central and basic human right; it is one of the marks of a Freeman. This speaks to the right to freedom of association, as recognized, honored, and protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
As Freemen, we are each entitled to reserve our individual right to associate as we see fit. We are free to withdraw from society as we may choose, for whatever reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. No man, regardless of his claim of purport, holds the authority to force upon another associations against the other's will.
Secession is not only the right of a population, though it is that also; it is most truly the right of the individual to associate as he will, which implies association in all its forms. This includes his choice to secede from government and its interferences in his life, regardless of the manner, degree, or justifications given them.
Those who presume to lord over the rest have nothing valid upon which to hang their assertions in the matter of their claims to authority, regardless of the premise, which perforce is always false precisely because such claims are always lies. The bottom line is this: no man holds authority over another. Unless the other has committed a bona fide crime, which excludes all the synthetic crimes dreamt up from the thin air by men on the basis of their corrupted beliefs and interests, one has no right to interfere in the choices of another. Authority, as commonly exercised by "government", is nothing better than the threat of the sword against all who fail to comply with the will of human caprice masquerading as valid command.
Bottom line: the right to secede is an inherent, individual right and not one of an exclusively collective nature. Indeed, the collective right only exists to the extent of that of each individual in the group in question. As we all know, or ought to know, rights are not additive. In a group of three individuals, the concurring opinions of two in accord with their rights to choose and act do not dominate to countervail the right of the third to choose for himself on the issue in question.
It is my hope that people will come to the better understanding of secession, embrace it, and work toward making it the rule, rather than the high-risk exception it is today.
Thanks once again, be well, and as always, please accept my best wishes.
Worcester's Dictionary of 1840:
SECEDE: n. To withdraw from union of fellowship in society, or in any matter or business; to separate oneself; to retire.Webster's of 1828:
SECE'DE, verb intransitive [L. secedo; se, from, and cedo, to move. Se is an inseparable preposition or prefix in Latin, but denoting departure or separation.]
To withdraw from fellowship, communion or association; to separate ones's self; as, certain ministers seceded from the church of Scotland about the year 1733.
Oxford Etymological Dictionary:
secede (v.)
1702, "to leave one's companions," from Latin secedere "go away, withdraw, separate; rebel, revolt," from se- "apart" + cedere "to go"). Sense of "to withdraw from a political or religious alliance of union" is recorded from 1755, originally especially in reference to the Church of Scotland. Related: Seceded; seceding; seceder.
Withdrawal is the essences of secession. The freedom to withdraw remains a central and basic human right; it is one of the marks of a Freeman. This speaks to the right to freedom of association, as recognized, honored, and protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
As Freemen, we are each entitled to reserve our individual right to associate as we see fit. We are free to withdraw from society as we may choose, for whatever reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. No man, regardless of his claim of purport, holds the authority to force upon another associations against the other's will.
Secession is not only the right of a population, though it is that also; it is most truly the right of the individual to associate as he will, which implies association in all its forms. This includes his choice to secede from government and its interferences in his life, regardless of the manner, degree, or justifications given them.
Those who presume to lord over the rest have nothing valid upon which to hang their assertions in the matter of their claims to authority, regardless of the premise, which perforce is always false precisely because such claims are always lies. The bottom line is this: no man holds authority over another. Unless the other has committed a bona fide crime, which excludes all the synthetic crimes dreamt up from the thin air by men on the basis of their corrupted beliefs and interests, one has no right to interfere in the choices of another. Authority, as commonly exercised by "government", is nothing better than the threat of the sword against all who fail to comply with the will of human caprice masquerading as valid command.
Bottom line: the right to secede is an inherent, individual right and not one of an exclusively collective nature. Indeed, the collective right only exists to the extent of that of each individual in the group in question. As we all know, or ought to know, rights are not additive. In a group of three individuals, the concurring opinions of two in accord with their rights to choose and act do not dominate to countervail the right of the third to choose for himself on the issue in question.
It is my hope that people will come to the better understanding of secession, embrace it, and work toward making it the rule, rather than the high-risk exception it is today.
Thanks once again, be well, and as always, please accept my best wishes.
Friday, March 1, 2019
Time Is Here
Time is here.
It always has been, and it always shall be.
The nexus is now.
The nexus, that fork in the road where one chooses the kind of a human being to be, is in every man's face every moment of every day. You, for example, will help choose what sort of world in which your great grandchildren shall live. You will choose, whether in the actively participatory manner of the righteous and brave Freeman, or through the limp and lame default of a Weakman's evasion. But make no mistake about it, you will choose, for there is no escaping the responsibility; there is only cheap and cowardly avoidance, which buys one nothing at all.
In spite of the ubiquitous belief that one man can do nothing to alter the future, it is precisely the opposite that is true: the world improves or deteriorates, one man at a time.
Thus far, we the people have fallen down terribly, failing to do what needs doing in order to secure our freedoms, our prosperity, our happiness, and every other good that derives therefrom.
Today we have the power of the network on our side, yet we seem to do so little of value with it.
Think about that awhile - we have more at hand than ever before, yet we fail ourselves more resolutely than ever. Previous generations might be forgiven their failings for want of information. Today, we drown in it and can therefore offer no valid reason, much less an excuse, for our idle acceptance of the outrages heaped upon us by other human beings who hold no authority to do so beyond the which we, the others, allow. And this is truer of Americans than of any other people on the earth.
The coming debridement of all pretty and deceptive varnishes previously slathered upon our statuses as serfs and perhaps as even slaves can be credited not to the tyrants, but fully and solely to ourselves, for we routinely and universally fail to take the measures necessary to throw the vampires from our necks.
Our posterity will one day curse our corruption, as perhaps even we shall ourselves.
A deep reexamination of who we are, what we believe in common, and what we are willing to do pursuant to those beliefs is long past due, as are the changes needed in our thoughts if we are tos be erious about being Freemen in preference to being Weakmen. And if we are not serious, as judged by our action rather than words, then I submit that it is high time we dispense with all the talk of it, for we succeed in naught but the making of ourselves into cheap, clown-like caricatures for whom we may validly hold no esteem beyond doleful and abiding embarrassment, shame, and bottomless, sorrow-heavy regret. Let us at least be honest about ourselves, if we will be nothing better than cowards and scoundrels unto ourselves.
If the boredom of the lie that is "security" is preferable to Sam Adams' "animating contest" of freedom, then let us admit it, the sad irony there being that the greatest assurance of security lies precisely in the contest, and not the lie. But nobody can choose for you, so I will advise utmost caution in how you decide to answer the call of your most basic nature as a free-born being.
The Freeman can always choose to become a slave. The slave, however, can rarely choose to be free.
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
It always has been, and it always shall be.
The nexus is now.
The nexus, that fork in the road where one chooses the kind of a human being to be, is in every man's face every moment of every day. You, for example, will help choose what sort of world in which your great grandchildren shall live. You will choose, whether in the actively participatory manner of the righteous and brave Freeman, or through the limp and lame default of a Weakman's evasion. But make no mistake about it, you will choose, for there is no escaping the responsibility; there is only cheap and cowardly avoidance, which buys one nothing at all.
In spite of the ubiquitous belief that one man can do nothing to alter the future, it is precisely the opposite that is true: the world improves or deteriorates, one man at a time.
Thus far, we the people have fallen down terribly, failing to do what needs doing in order to secure our freedoms, our prosperity, our happiness, and every other good that derives therefrom.
Today we have the power of the network on our side, yet we seem to do so little of value with it.
Think about that awhile - we have more at hand than ever before, yet we fail ourselves more resolutely than ever. Previous generations might be forgiven their failings for want of information. Today, we drown in it and can therefore offer no valid reason, much less an excuse, for our idle acceptance of the outrages heaped upon us by other human beings who hold no authority to do so beyond the which we, the others, allow. And this is truer of Americans than of any other people on the earth.
The coming debridement of all pretty and deceptive varnishes previously slathered upon our statuses as serfs and perhaps as even slaves can be credited not to the tyrants, but fully and solely to ourselves, for we routinely and universally fail to take the measures necessary to throw the vampires from our necks.
Our posterity will one day curse our corruption, as perhaps even we shall ourselves.
A deep reexamination of who we are, what we believe in common, and what we are willing to do pursuant to those beliefs is long past due, as are the changes needed in our thoughts if we are tos be erious about being Freemen in preference to being Weakmen. And if we are not serious, as judged by our action rather than words, then I submit that it is high time we dispense with all the talk of it, for we succeed in naught but the making of ourselves into cheap, clown-like caricatures for whom we may validly hold no esteem beyond doleful and abiding embarrassment, shame, and bottomless, sorrow-heavy regret. Let us at least be honest about ourselves, if we will be nothing better than cowards and scoundrels unto ourselves.
If the boredom of the lie that is "security" is preferable to Sam Adams' "animating contest" of freedom, then let us admit it, the sad irony there being that the greatest assurance of security lies precisely in the contest, and not the lie. But nobody can choose for you, so I will advise utmost caution in how you decide to answer the call of your most basic nature as a free-born being.
The Freeman can always choose to become a slave. The slave, however, can rarely choose to be free.
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
A Key Failing Of Humanity
Short installment time.
Humans are full of failings. We cheat on our spouses, take more than that to which we are entitled, beat, rob, rape, war, and so on down a depressingly long list.
While all these failings may be considered equivalent after a fashion, in the context of proper human freedom, one error stands above the rest: tolerance of the intolerable.
"Governments", "states", or whatever you wish to call the mobs of humans who live to trespass upon their fellows to the greatest degree with which they can get away, do just that: trespass upon the rights of free men to the extent that those men become de facto serfs, and even outright slaves. It makes no matter how pretty the cage may be that these mobs build around their subjects, for they remain as cages, limiting the rightful prerogatives of their fellow human beings with absolutely zero authority to do so.
And what do those people do who have been trodden upon roughshod? Nothing of substance; not a whit. Speech is all well and good, as may be other avenues of redress; but what happens when speech fails, Congress ignores your pleas and demands, and the courts make rulings that serve only to retrench the violations that have been foisted upon you without consent? That is the point where material non-equivocation shows its utility, but only if people are willing to assume the attendant risks.
When in 1803 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Marbury v. Madison, they assumed a power to which they were not Constitutionally authorized, the act thereby constituting a usurpation. The usurpation in question was that of the power to "interpret" the Constitution, what has come to be called "judicial review", a rather deceptive term. With judicial review, SCOTUS assumed the authority to dictate to the nation which statutes were Law and which were not. This is particularly ironic in the face of the fact that part of the Marbury ruling states:
All at once, the SCOTUS acknowledges the supremacy of the Constitution, and by extension, the full blossom of the rights of all men, and usurps the power to decide which acts are or not repugnant, apparently failing to consider the two-edged nature of that sword. In the hands of the righteous and competent man, judicial review might serve as a defense against governmental overreach. In the hand of incompetents or malefactors, it can and has served to destroy the ability of men to exercise their rights without the perils of the state landing squarely upon them in crushing, life destroying fashion, which is precisely what happens to people today on a basis so common as to be outright vulgar.
But what could good Americans have done to prevent this false assumption of invalid authority by SCOTUS? Firstly, they could have endeavored to make themselves aware and to spread that knowledge far and wide, that the people of this land would learn of the perfidy of a small cadre of their fellow Americans. Secondly, and in some respects perhaps more importantly, they could have gone armed to the court and deposed the scoundrels with rapid dispatch, whether it meant running them out of town on a rail, or killing them.
Now, you may think that killing a government official for "doing his job" is a mite extreme, and on that point I would agree fully, extremity being the precise point because it should be clear to everyone by now that individuals in government will hang on to the power they have often even unto their own destruction at the hands of angry mobs. Those mobs, ready and willing to relieve tyrants of their heads, constitute the ultimate instruments for maintaining the state of freedom for all. Those who would violate your rights and, upon being informed of the violations, who refuse to amend their ways have made unto their fellows through their refusals, a statement that is as clear and eloquent as any possible: "your rights are as nothing to me." When that message comes through via actions, the free man is faced with the choice: heed the call to righteous action, or become a Weakman. The Freeman is obliged by all that is right, decent, and reasonable to put unrepentant tyrants to their ends, up to and including killing them, for the violations of the rights of one's fellows, as well as oneself, must not be tolerated to any degree whatsoever. The moment the first violation is allowed, the door to absolute tyranny has been opened, if only slightly ajar. It makes no matter, for in time those who seek ever greater lordship over their fellows will endeavor to push the doors to absolute despotism ever wider such that one day all he needs do is waltz into the realm your rights as if he owns the place, which is exactly what has been done almost since the earliest days of the Republic.
I will go not further in my exposition as I believe the point has been made, at least for now. To reject material non-equivocation in whatever form it may take including physical violence resulting the death of unrepentant tyrants is not virtue, but a grave flaw of character marking at best ignorance that cannot be forgiven, save that it be corrected and amended. At worst, it represents cowardice of the most despicable order.
Those who wish to be free must perforce assume the duties, responsibilities, costs, obligations, and all the other burdens of maintenance. As an old saw goes, "freedom isn't free."
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
Humans are full of failings. We cheat on our spouses, take more than that to which we are entitled, beat, rob, rape, war, and so on down a depressingly long list.
While all these failings may be considered equivalent after a fashion, in the context of proper human freedom, one error stands above the rest: tolerance of the intolerable.
"Governments", "states", or whatever you wish to call the mobs of humans who live to trespass upon their fellows to the greatest degree with which they can get away, do just that: trespass upon the rights of free men to the extent that those men become de facto serfs, and even outright slaves. It makes no matter how pretty the cage may be that these mobs build around their subjects, for they remain as cages, limiting the rightful prerogatives of their fellow human beings with absolutely zero authority to do so.
And what do those people do who have been trodden upon roughshod? Nothing of substance; not a whit. Speech is all well and good, as may be other avenues of redress; but what happens when speech fails, Congress ignores your pleas and demands, and the courts make rulings that serve only to retrench the violations that have been foisted upon you without consent? That is the point where material non-equivocation shows its utility, but only if people are willing to assume the attendant risks.
When in 1803 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Marbury v. Madison, they assumed a power to which they were not Constitutionally authorized, the act thereby constituting a usurpation. The usurpation in question was that of the power to "interpret" the Constitution, what has come to be called "judicial review", a rather deceptive term. With judicial review, SCOTUS assumed the authority to dictate to the nation which statutes were Law and which were not. This is particularly ironic in the face of the fact that part of the Marbury ruling states:
"...an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void."
All at once, the SCOTUS acknowledges the supremacy of the Constitution, and by extension, the full blossom of the rights of all men, and usurps the power to decide which acts are or not repugnant, apparently failing to consider the two-edged nature of that sword. In the hands of the righteous and competent man, judicial review might serve as a defense against governmental overreach. In the hand of incompetents or malefactors, it can and has served to destroy the ability of men to exercise their rights without the perils of the state landing squarely upon them in crushing, life destroying fashion, which is precisely what happens to people today on a basis so common as to be outright vulgar.
But what could good Americans have done to prevent this false assumption of invalid authority by SCOTUS? Firstly, they could have endeavored to make themselves aware and to spread that knowledge far and wide, that the people of this land would learn of the perfidy of a small cadre of their fellow Americans. Secondly, and in some respects perhaps more importantly, they could have gone armed to the court and deposed the scoundrels with rapid dispatch, whether it meant running them out of town on a rail, or killing them.
Now, you may think that killing a government official for "doing his job" is a mite extreme, and on that point I would agree fully, extremity being the precise point because it should be clear to everyone by now that individuals in government will hang on to the power they have often even unto their own destruction at the hands of angry mobs. Those mobs, ready and willing to relieve tyrants of their heads, constitute the ultimate instruments for maintaining the state of freedom for all. Those who would violate your rights and, upon being informed of the violations, who refuse to amend their ways have made unto their fellows through their refusals, a statement that is as clear and eloquent as any possible: "your rights are as nothing to me." When that message comes through via actions, the free man is faced with the choice: heed the call to righteous action, or become a Weakman. The Freeman is obliged by all that is right, decent, and reasonable to put unrepentant tyrants to their ends, up to and including killing them, for the violations of the rights of one's fellows, as well as oneself, must not be tolerated to any degree whatsoever. The moment the first violation is allowed, the door to absolute tyranny has been opened, if only slightly ajar. It makes no matter, for in time those who seek ever greater lordship over their fellows will endeavor to push the doors to absolute despotism ever wider such that one day all he needs do is waltz into the realm your rights as if he owns the place, which is exactly what has been done almost since the earliest days of the Republic.
I will go not further in my exposition as I believe the point has been made, at least for now. To reject material non-equivocation in whatever form it may take including physical violence resulting the death of unrepentant tyrants is not virtue, but a grave flaw of character marking at best ignorance that cannot be forgiven, save that it be corrected and amended. At worst, it represents cowardice of the most despicable order.
Those who wish to be free must perforce assume the duties, responsibilities, costs, obligations, and all the other burdens of maintenance. As an old saw goes, "freedom isn't free."
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)