The Great Religion

I've spent much time in the thought about the nature of government, and how the whole concept needs a serious overhaul.  Over time, things were thought of, reasons weighed, and ideas discarded when they became workable, and I came across the root of the problem.

The government is a group of people.  However, so are the Salvation Army, Wal-Mart, and Slashdot.  It also applies to cliques, families, and even neighborhoods.  True, there's also infrastructure, but what difference is there between them?  The government claims to have justification to perform violence on others, and to be fair, it is designed for the purpose of preventing people from predating one another.  So, what separates the Government from a security company, or an arbitration agency?  Why are they given more latitude, and more power that the former two organizations.

The Law.

There is a strange sort of not-worship involving the Law.  People refuse to believe that they consider it a religion, but then they spout phrases like "Everyone's equal in the eyes of the Law," "Nobody is above the Law," and "You can't escape the long arm of the Law."  People evoke the power of the law as a sort of mantra, and then they determine right or wrong based on whether something is legal or illegal.  Then they give all members of the organization supposedly representing "The Law" with all the respect they would give angels or saints (or whatever exalted clergy they have in their respective religions).

This can have a nasty effect on the ego of people who are endowed with the awesome power of such reverence.  They realize there's a lot they can do, and they don't have to answer for it, or they'll have a free pass.  They have immense amounts of power over the actions of others with little need for effort, and fewer repercussions for their actions than a "non-law" person would have.  After all, the people they have to answer to are also people they spend a lot of time around, there's naturally going to be some bonding at this point, so they would begin to have the "Us vs. Them" mentality against everyone who has grievances against them.

This is not to say that police, judges, politicians, etc. can't be good people.  They can, and I have an inordinate amount of respect for those people who actually put effort into preventing the power from going to their heads.  But the fact that the only motivation to stay good is an inhuman level of self-control is in itself, a large source of the problems.

And if the government is the clergy and chapels to this "Church of Law," just who is the god?  Statistical superiority.  The god of Law is the largest number of people, so it is important to stay on that group's good side.  This is done by saying a little prayer in the form of a ballot once every so often, and then talking about it afterward in the vain hope that it would somehow affect the decision of the numerical superior.  Then, you need to obey the edicts handed down by this god, or its representatives in the clergy.

Any who disobey the "Law," regardless of just how morally just the law was in the first place, are immediately looked at as heretics, and persecuted by the above clergy.  They will be robbed, threatened, caged, paraded in a pretense of good faith, and in some cases, killed.  The last likelihood increases greatly depending on the moral disposition of the policeman and the willingness of the persecuted to defend himself.

All this, because the Law is given more importance than it should really have... a good idea that should be limited to protecting people from violence.  When it becomes more important than life, self-security, and freedom, then it is no longer a good idea.

Free Trade and the Corporation

When getting into a discussion about whether or not the free market is a good idea, one thing seems to find its way in, under the assumption that it exist in the free market: the actions of the corporations. In the standard argument, if a government didn't have anything to do with the market, then the corporations will cause all manner of problems for the independents and the consumers in order to get the most profit.

This argument falls on its face for two reasons.

The first reason is that the corporation is a fictional legal construct made by laws; it is only by a government's say-so that a corporation even exists. As such, it is absolutely impossible for a corporation to exist in a free market, because its existence is a direct result of government interference.

The other reason involves what gives a corporation its power, money. Money is a measure of value, and thanks to a whole string of laws dating back in the United States since 1913, it is the sole legal source of currency in the United States, which consists of papers that depend on the debt produced at the time of its delivery into the market. This debt is controlled by (surprise!) a corporation that has some oversight by the United States government, the Federal Reserve Bank.

Of course, there is merit to the idea that corporations can exist without law, because the government is a corporation, right? In this case, the corporation exists because you either go along with the fiction, or you will be extorted, robbed, beaten, thrown in a cage, or even killed, depending on how determined you are to ignore the fiction. And since the general public, afraid of the consequences, go along with the fiction to be allowed to continue living, they will look at you as a criminal for daring to ignore the "law."

So, keep in mind the next time you want to state that corporations take advantage of the "free market,"  just remember that they don't exist, and can't exist in a free market.

A Question of Constitution

The founding principle of the United States used to be 'freedom.'  The problem is that people forget this is a principle, and start adding provisos and exceptions, with whole categories of 'except' and 'but,' with a whole honking hoard of 'unless' mixed in for good measure.

A principle is simple.  It cannot have exceptions.  If there are exceptions, then it's no longer a principle, and you should probably stop trying to claim you believe in it.

The Constitution was designed to safeguard the principle of freedom as best it could, but with time, the body of law and education superseded it with a whole lot of rhetoric.  Now you have a mess of prohibitions, regulations, and mandates that have nothing at all to do with protecting the freedom of its citizens, and the government, charged with enforcing the very law that limits it, gives said law the broadest definition it can so that it can get away with as much as it can.  After all, a lot of people (often with money) want these laws, and someone wants to be re-elected, right?  And of course, if you don't pass new laws, you're not doing your job as congressman/senator, are you?

Freedom is simple: "You are your own sole owner, and nobody but you has right or responsibility over you."  This implies two things: 'you can do whatever you want to yourself,' and 'you can't do whatever you want to someone else.'  Additionally, property is a combination of free will, effort and unowned natural resources, so, for the purposes of this principle, it qualifies that property is a part of self.  Consent is used to share right and responsibility, and to give property away, but it must be given willingly to be just.  If anything, life, actions, property, etc. is taken from a person by force, it cannot be just according to the principle of freedom.

This above principle fits every single form of violence you can name: theft, assault, rape, murder, slavery, kidnapping, torture, etc.  The above principle also defies the justness of any law that prevents, regulates, or enforces activities between two consenting individuals.

I commend the Founding Fathers for their attempts at maximizing liberty using the Constitutional Contract, but it's become apparent that it is no longer working, and that there's really not much point to constitutionality.  It was bound to fail as long as the government it created was allowed to define, refine, and interpret it.

Church and State

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
- Thomas Jefferson

---

The separation of church and state is a point of pride to many American people.  However, were they to see the reality of the Law, they may not be so bold in their claims.

The American government is broken down into this design:

• Representatives are decided upon by the largest group of people.
• These representatives then decide what is right on behalf of the largest group of people.
• Other representatives and their staff enforce the decision on not just the largest group of people, but on all people, punishing those who behave in a "wrong" way.
• These representatives appoint men to a position to judge those who are claimed to behave in the wrong way.
• The rules that govern these representatives are under these representatives' control.

So, what you have is a group of people who decide morality, judge people on that decision, punish people for being "wrong," and also have control over the rules that govern them.

Now, "the will of the whole people," what is this?  This is the belief that all people agreed to this in the first place.  Now, when was the last time, in all the history you remember, that a popular vote was unanimous?  Certainly not in all the time i've been alive.  So, if a vote was not unanimous, meaning that all voting individuals agreed to a single vote, how can "whole" be applied to people?

It can't.

The "will of the people" is an illusion, designed for rhetoric to give the listener the impression that everyone agrees, despite the fact that the unlucky fewer who were ignored and sidelined had disagreed.  This is never mentioned when speaking of "the will of the people."  However, the "will of the people" are used as a reason for new things to be determined good or bad, and therefore enforced.

So, in essence, it seems that government is one big religion, with "the will of the people" as a form of God, lawmakers and judges as their high priests, lawyers as clergy, and the police and military as the paladins and crusaders of the order.   And the law itself is scripted in the penal code, the order's bible.

Separation of church and state is thus impossible, as the state is a church.

Force Multipliers

Having been laid off, I certainly understand the fear one has about no longer having an income to sustain oneself, but I hear a lot of people talk about looking everywhere for work, and not finding it.  Of course, where I live is pretty well-populated, so while there's a lot of jobs available, there's also a lot of people around to fill them.

However, a lot of people seem to have the impression that they need to throw the fishing line in for each job in order to come up with something.  They play the numbers game in an additive way, putting in anywhere from 5-30 lines in the water at any given time.

Well, it is a numbers game.  The more lines in the water, the more the likelihood of catching a fish, possibly a big one.

The interesting thing about the numbers game is that many play it in an additive way, wearing themselves out in order to place so many lines in the water.  This can be an especially difficult situation if each line requires watching, and possibly maintenance.  This can result in a maximum number of lines at any given time, since any more would be unsustainable.

There is a military phrase that should be used in non-military applications far more often than it is.  "Force Multiplication."  Force multiplication improves the ability of each member of a group, thereby "multiplying" the ability of the group to accomplish the goal in question, and can also divide the necessary maintenance, thereby resulting in a massive net gain with little effort.

If you have 30 lines in the water, and you double each one's effectiveness, then you've got the equivalent of 60 lines in the water.  If you find a way to cause those lines to work together, say making them into a net, then you've essentially increased the effectiveness by an order of magnitude, and reduced the maintenance by a similar order of magnitude.

While the fishing metaphor isn't quite accurate (as I'm hardly a fisherman, and I know a 30-line net isn't going to catch much, sans lures), it does apply to many things outside of military lore.  The search for employment is one such thing.

Think about this: in a business, a project will consist of many different kinds of people.  Each person will have some specialty in a relevant piece of the project, and therefore, can accomplish that piece far better than an average person.  By combining these experts into one project, you've essentially multiplied the ability of the project to exceed demands.  This is not limited to "projects" of the corporate sense, but also can apply to personal or community projects.  In essence, the combination of experts can multiply the force of work towards a goal.

There are force-multipliers for the job market.  Temporary agencies and contract agencies essentially combine specialists and connected people into a group that can essentially handle the equivalent groundwork, in a day, to what a single person would need a whole week to accomplish.  By themselves, such agencies are a powerful force multiplier.

There are force-multipliers for the dating world.  You could go to nice places where you are likely to meet the people you want to spend time with, but, like the job market above, there is very little efficiency in the practice, especially given the limited information one has on any potential interest they encounter.  Many exes from hell are encountered in this way.  Granted, there's also stories of "dating site exes from hell" stories out there, but at least the field can be effectively narrowed a lot quicker and more effectively through such sites than it can in a bar or a library (or any other place you care to name).

There are force-multipliers for hobbies out there.  As previous posts have mentioned, I have a particular interest in making my own tools; custom-made tools means a hobby can be fined tuned to fit your needs, and with far less cost, and in less time than it can if you were to search out and buy all your tools.  With good scavenging skills (dumpster diving, curbside collection, etc.), you might not even need a lot of materials... never mind recycling materials like plastic and metal, or desoldering and collecting items like electronic components, from those things you might otherwise throw out. (Although I can't stress enough you MUST be careful about ensuring some high-voltage equipment like CRT displays are drained... there's no efficiency in dying a horrible, painful, and particularly gruesome death, or ending up a vegetable)

All these examples cover the exact same thing; applying something to your actions that multiply their effectiveness, rather than just working harder to add to your effectiveness.  As the saying goes, "Work smarter, not harder."  Whatever you do, take a few minutes, and actually look at the steps you are following.  See what you can do to multiply their effectiveness, whether it is to increase speed, decrease cost and/or effort, and possibly to do things in parallel.  You might just see a new way to accomplish your goals a lot faster than you would if you wore yourself out with hard work.

Keeping the Constitution on Trial

Remember this simple set of points in order to ensure that the constitutional arguments cannot be expelled in a court without making the judge look bad as a result. Just remember that this will work much better if the court is populated with neutral onlookers as well as biased visitors.

The first law in each state is the state constitution. This is the law that defines the positions of the state officials. The role for judges, legislators, and enforcement personnel are all defined by a constitution, whether it be city, state, or federal. In addition, their limits are also defined by the constitution. Without the constitution, the laws passed by legislators have no meaning, and the actions of police and judges have no authority.

In essence, if the constitution does not apply to a case, then there can be no case, because without a constitution, the court, jury, judge, and all police personnel have no authority, and the laws passed are not enforceable without severe loss of face.

The Words of Cognitive Dissonance

I'm lying.

The above phrase was used by a Captain James T. Kirk in order to confuse a robot into a sort of mental paradox where two conflicting statements are simultaneously accepted as truth, even at the same time that they are rejected as lies. After all, if Jim was lying, then he was telling the truth. If he was telling the truth, then he was lying.

This is the basis of the more generalized concept known as "Cognitive Dissonance," where two conflicting facts vie to be accepted to a person's worldview. While it's not nearly as fatal to a human being, it does have a side effect; a person who suffers cognitive dissonance becomes uncomfortable with the topic, and either attempts to change the topic, or ignores anything that conflicts with it in the hope that it will go away.

Generally, the correct action to prevent cognitive dissonance is to reject the incorrect concept. However, when some evidence turns up to conflict with a deeply-held belief, rejecting a foundation of your combined sum of knowledge can make this a difficult process. The more deep the belief, the more dissonance you will need to experience before you can finally reject that deeply-held belief for something more realistic. Some can never release the incorrect belief, either because it was too deeply placed, or because there's too much fear of the alternative.

Before I continue, let's read an excerpt from The Golden Apple, by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea.

At this point, it would seem prudent to make a clearer distinction, and offer my own definition of the word fnord, as well as contra-fnord, which is actually what the word 'law' is.

• Fnord: (n.) A word or concept that people are conditioned to feel discomfort and/or fear at its observation. Its absence results in comfort.
• Contra-fnord: (n.) A word or concept that people are conditioned to feel comfort at its observation. Its absence results in discomfort and/or fear.

Fnords and contra-fnords differ from normal phobias and comforts in that they are intentionally laid down as conditioning, sometimes through some form of hypnosis, but more commonly through a longer-term, systemic process of repetition, such as the training one receives in schools.

Examples of fnords are 'illegal' and 'sin.' Anything associated with these words are generally feared by the general populace, and often laws are formed specifically to give a subset of this population, called 'law enforcers' the permission to attack those people associated with these words.

Examples of contra-fnords are 'legal,' 'sacred,' and 'mandatory.' Anything associated with these words are generally permitted by the general populace, and those who have/do anything associated with these words are generally safe from attack by the above 'law enforcers.'

Laws are considered the key tool to direct fnords and counter-fnords. Any time someone fears a specific thing, they can add that thing to the fnord association, thereby ensuring that future generations of people will consider that thing as positive or negative, and act accordingly.

Fnords and contra-fnords are most easily laid down during childhood, which the children do not know enough to counter the questionable claims. The above excerpt also mentioned hypnosis in passing, but such a step, while expedient, is not absolutely necessary if the conditioning begins early enough in life.

The purpose of a fnord is essentially to encourage people to avoid inconsistencies, rather than resolving them. It's much easier to say that marijuana is illegal than to explain why it's actually bad. It's much easier to claim national security as a reason to keep those Spanish-speaking people from coming to one's hometown, instead of actually explaining that one does not wish to speak Spanish. And it's MUCH easier to blame the breakdown of families on homosexuals than to think about the breakdown on individual responsibility.

This encouragement causes ignorance of contradiction and inconsistency. People who ignore contradiction and inconsistency are easier to control. Their lives become easier, because alternatives are safely kept away from them. They become slaves, while still believing they are free, and as a result, are much easier to fleece.

The worst happens, though, when the aware are no longer around. The fleecing will continue, but the masters will believe the very same story that the slaves do, and eventually, the lie becomes the master in place of the liar, and becomes a twisted dance of inconsistency and contradiction.

The examples are numerous: How do police "protect and serve?" By attacking and commanding. How is freedom maintained? By passing prohibitions, mandating behavior, and killing or locking in cages everyone who disagrees with one's definition of freedom. What are rights? Benefits mandated of the providers of goods and services. How is freedom spread? By committing mass-murder.

Those who can "see the fnords" will recognize the above as completely accurate, if negative in its display. Those who are conditioned by the fnords see the above as mischaracterization and possibly downright lies. After all, it's not locking in cages if it's arresting a person. And it's not mass-murder if war is declared, right? And police serve by attacking those who do not obey the law, right? Even if the law is nothing more than a list of commands.

If one is surrounded by illusions, they may very well get hurt by what's really there. This applies when one is walking about in darkness, or under a hallucination; when someone walks in an area that they cannot observe what's there, they may hit, step on, or trip over something, possibly hurting themselves in the process.

The same applies for life. The purpose of living is to maximize one's happiness while minimizing one's misery, and similarly preventing harm and death to oneself. One cannot live free if they cannot see life for what it is, they may act against their own health, survival, or happiness in the effort to comply to some rule that may benefit someone else at their own expense.

In order to escape this trap, cognitive dissonance must be recognized and used. Flawed ideas need to be rejected, and consistency retained. Discard the illusion, take the red pill, look at the fnords, and be free. Learn to live in the real world, no longer fettered by the fnords and contra-fnords in a system gone insane. And find what it truly means to be happy.

The Philosophy of Liberty

The people at the International Society for Individual Liberty have put together a very informative video that explains the basic principles of liberty much more effectively and briefly than I can, and it does fit the "changing paradigm" theme of this particular blog.



This particular work was made by ISIL Director Ken Schoolland, who encourages everyone to "feel free to copy or link it to your website(s) – just be sure to credit us."

Missing the Forest or the Trees

There is a saying, describing a person who pays too much attention to detail, someone who misses the "big picture" in their pursuit of said details. They are "missing the forest for the trees."

Why trees? Why is it that the forest is missed simply because of the trees? Maybe the person is a birdwatcher? Or perhaps is more interested in the composition of the ground flora? Or maybe even interested in the soil composition, or maybe even the earthworms tending to the soil density? Perhaps an archeologist is looking for the signs of an ancient civilization? Perhaps someone is looking for a place to build that building they will eventually call "Home?" Or maybe we have a hunter looking to have some venison and a leather jacket?

There are many people who pay too much attention to the aggregate that they do not pay enough attention to the individual. Why is it that the trees are not important, but the forest is? And why are the trees more important than any other part of a completely healthy forest?

Even so, why should the trees be missed? Why miss the massive oak, the delicate willow, or the symmetrical pine, just because they aren't the aggregate? Aren't the individuals just as important as the aggregate they make up? Would a forest still be a forest without the trees?

Come to think of it, that saying kind of... misses the trees for the forest.

Principles of Free People

Before we begin, it is helpful to outline some basic terms for the purpose of making this article that much clearer. All the following definitions are from the Mirriam Webster Online dictionary at http://www.merriam-webster.com/. Don't worry, though, these are english defintions, not legal ones, so they should be pretty easy to understand.

---

Principle: A comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption.
Comprehensive: Covering completely or broadly.
Fundamental: Serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function.
Essential: Of, relating to, or constituting essence.
Essence: The individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence.

This first set of definitions are to determine the meaning of principle. A principle is comprehensive and fundamental, which boils down to the simple fact that it cannot have exceptions. If an exception can be assigned to a principle, than it cannot be a principle for that very reason.

---

Ownership: The state, relation, or fact of being an owner.
Own: To have power or mastery over.

To own something one must have power or mastery over that thing. Two people cannot own the same thing, because only one person can have power over something at any given time. Ever see the comedies where two people attempt to steer the same car? It usually has devastating (but, since it is a comedy, funny) results, since at that point, nobody really has power over the car.

---

Self: The union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person.

You are the sum of your body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations, therefore, you are a self.

---

We now have enough definitions to determine the first principle.

Self-Ownership Principle: The comprehensive and fundamental assumption that one has mastery over the union of elements that constitute the individuality and identity of a peron.

Self-ownership is completely consistent with reality. After all, absolutely nobody has complete mastery over a person other than that person. Sometimes the behavior can be forcefully controlled, but not the emotions, thoughts, and sensations of that person. Therefore, a person owns himself.

---

Consent: To give assent or approval.
Force: Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing.
Aggression: A forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.
Provoke: To stir up purposely.

These two indicate the two prerequisites toward controlling another person. You can either acquire the consent of another through the use of persuation, or you can get compliance through force. Aggression makes the point to include the word "unprevoked," which means that the aggressive party was not provoked into their action, but acted of their own volition. It can be safely assumed that the aggressor did not acquire the consent of the target for their aggression.

---

Right: Being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper.
Just: Acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good.
Good: Of a favorable character or tendency.
Wrong: Action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.

Anything that is right is desired, and any action that inflicts harm without due provocation or just cause is wrong, and therefore not of a favorable character.

---

At this point, we have established that any action that is consented to is not wrong, because any action that is consensual cannot by definition be harm, because a person who gives consent considers the action as favorable, or else they would not have given consent.

Additionally, at this point, we have stated that force is not necessarily right, but is right if there is due provocation or just cause. We now need to define a rule that separates wrong from right force. At this point, we can cover the counterpoint to the Self-Ownership Principle.

Non-Aggression Principle: It is wrong to practice aggression against the non-consenting.

The use of the word "aggression" rather than "force" is a key piece of this principle. It could not be a principle if the word "force" was used, as pacifism, while admirable, is self-defeating. Self-defense is part and parcel with self-ownership, and is therefore a fundamental part of the principle. Eliminate the self-defensive force, and you won't own yourself for very long without external protection.

Essentially, it states that one should only use force when defending their property, e.g. themselves. Any other use of force is wrong.

---

Finally, we can bring this into what I've been talking about with just about all the articles posted so far.

Prohibit: To prevent from doing something.
Regulate: To make regulations for or concerning.
Regulation: An authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure.
Compel: To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure.
Jurisdiction: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law.
Government: The body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization, the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it, and the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out.

The definition of government is pretty long-winded, but then, it has to be.

A "political unit" is essentially an organized group of people who agree to a certain set of policies, also known as laws. In this political unit is a government, which is a smaller group of people who makes those laws, and sees to the punishments of those who break the laws.

Laws fall into three categories, prohibitions, regulations, and compulsions.

Prohibitions are the laws that state that something cannot be done at all. Examples of prohibitions include prostitution, mind-altering substances, and assault weapons.

Regulations are the laws that state that something can only be done in a certain way, and with the permission of the government. Regulations exist for just about every activity out there, such as building codes, licensing for many professions, and driver's licences, vehicle registrations, and tags to drive a car.

Compulsions are those laws that are mandatory for all members of the political unit. The most obvious compulsions are payment of taxes, and the acceptance of the Federal Reserve Note as a form of currency to repay debt.

The main problem with government is not that it exists. Two things cause a huge amount of the problems we see in society and the world in general:

1. Jurisdiction focuses on land area rather than voluntary membership.
2. Laws are enforced through aggressive action.
   

Land-based jurisdiction is wrong, according to the Principle of Non-Aggression, simply because the demand that all persons in a geographical area obey the laws of a group they don't necessarily want to be a part of is aggression; they do not consent to an action, and yet, they are not otherwise provoking anyone, but simply seeking their own happiness in their own way. A government that is consistent to the principle of non-aggression is one that is built around a voluntary political unit; such a unit would recruit new members, and then enforce the laws on those members, leaving open the option for the members to leave the political unit.

Additionally, enforcement through aggression is definitively against the non-aggression axiom. This, of course, doesn't apply to protective measures; a policeman protecting a victim from their aggressor is not aggressing himself, but is performing a justified (and no doubt consensual) defense of the victim, and so would not be incompatible. However, any police or military who enforces a compulsion, regulation, or prohibition on a person who is otherwise not aggressing against anyone is themselves aggressing, and therefore is violating the non-aggression principle.

And for those who believe that a nozick-style government meets the requirements even if it is area-based, let's remind you that taxes are a compulsion, and therefore a violation of the non-aggression principle.

At this point, I hope you are beginning to see the other side of government, and are able to make the connection between a government (as it exists today) and a very large gang. Perhaps the two principles might just make you realize that some of the fundamental assumptions you have of certain activities might not be correct. Or maybe you already agree with me and found this to be helpful. In any event, I hope you can come to realize the nature of freedom, and join me in the effort to enlighten others toward true freedom.

Separating Justice and Crime

What is the government?

Is taxation extortion and armed robbery?
Is capital punishment murder?
Is war mass-murder?
Is the law a system of slavery?
Is an arrest a kidnapping?
Is jurisdiction turf?
Are soldiers hired killers?
Are police gangsters?

If none of the above apply, then what separates the boldfaced from the italicized?

The answer many will have is authority. Only one thing can give authority, and that is consent... and any compliance given to avoid being the victim of violent behavior is not consent.

Just something to think about.

Voluntary Society Blueprint

This is the blueprint for a society that is both orderly and free of a monopolistic and violent government. The "society" would be built of multiple levels:

• The baseline society would consist of a universally-accepted rule: honor your commitments. No matter what society you would be a part of, if you cannot be trusted to honor your commitments, then you will not be trusted to enter into a contract with any particular tuath.
  
• The second level is the tuath, or contract society; once you sign a contract with your reputation provider, they will vouch for you in all your transactions. This is important, as these insurers can provide a person with an authority as is recognized today, and people are free to acknowledge or disregard a person based on who represents them.
• An alternative to the tuath is the social society. This consists of the personal acquaintances, friends, and family; the basic support structure one can fall back on if they are unable to contract with a tuath, due to possible previous reputation blunders, or if they are unwilling to contract with any available tuath, and do not want to start their own.

Baseline Society

The baseline society is just that: baseline. All societies need to follow the base rule in order to be compatible enough in order to interoperate. The base rule is simple: honor your commitments. If one cannot honor commitments, then nobody can trust the contracts they sign, and any relationships they have with family and friends would be likely strained to the point that even family wouldn't want to vouch for them.

Tuath Society

Tuath is a Gaelic word that means "people." In this case, it refers to a government contracted by its "citizens," in other words, the members of a tuath are members because they explicitly signed to join the society. Tuaths include a special charter that identifies the basic principles upon which their laws are based. Tuaths are the bulk of the society's design; they allow a strong support behind their member through multiple services (these may be part of the premiums, or they may be a separate expense).

• Reputation Record: A reputation provider tracks the contracts and keeps a score of their client's record for easy access, while still ensuring their client's privacy. Reports of contract problems, breaking, etc. are reported to the insurer for recording. The score can also have an effect on the premiums the policyholder pays, so inherent in the system is a spur for good behavior.
• Reputation Insurance: Contracts can break from circumstances outside of anyone's control; an "Act of God" can result in losses resulting from an involuntarily-broken contract. Such problems, in addition to other incidents of an accidental or unavoidable nature can be insured against. Reputation insurance allows the damages from unavoidable situations (and some that may have been avoidable, except for human failure... the safety zone varies from tuath to tuath) to be paid. Then, in order to avoid higher premiums, the policyholder may opt to perform a service in order to compensate the damages caused by the broken contract, thereby nullifying any risk of the contract break being recorded.
  
• Arbitration Services: There are two forms of arbitration services; intra-tuath and inter-tuath. Intra-tuath arbitration is represented by the tuath they serve, and function as a court system for settling disputes between members of the same tuath. Inter-tuath arbitration have their own tuaths, thereby allowing them to arbitrate a disagreement between the members of two other tuaths, as well as disagreements among themselves. For the purpose of smooth dispute resolution, various tuaths will contract with each other to settle their disputes using specific inter-tuath arbitrators they both trust. This network allows disputes to be resolved even if the members are in conflicting tuaths.
  
• Advocate Services: When dealing with arbitration, a tuath member may want to have prorfessional representation, someone who is familiar with the practice of debating. Advocates in this system would not practice law, per se, but are professionally capable of recognizing rhetoric and fallacy in arguments; this would allow them to cut through rhetoric and lies to reach the truth of the matter, thereby ensuring that their clients and the tuath are fairly represented.
• Investigation Services: Like the arbitration services, the investigators are split between the intra- and inter-tuath levels, in order to ensure service unbiased by tuathic obligations. Their findings are free to be accepted or refused, so their integrity is of the highest value.
• Security Services: Finally, we focus on the base service of the tuath: the security services. These people work for one of a number of security firms, chartered to protect their clients from outside forces. They have contracts with other security companies to ensure that disputes between forces do not result in a shootout situation, costing valuable equipment and lives. In the case of an invasion, a large number of the security services have invasion contracts which allow them to cooperate with one another to protect the overall area they all service, and can call on reinforcements from other areas for additional cost.

Social Society

The social society is simply one's circle of friends and family. Where tuaths are for allowing strangers to live in peace with one another by minding contractual obligations, the social society exists through a separate set of links through personal interests and family connections. These can span multiple tuaths, as tuath contracts are personal, rather than group-based, so social society systems can be formed to settle conflicts within the social society instead of the tuath; these are usually more informal, but ultimately stronger due to the kinds of connections that are formed through the bonds of friendship and kinship.

Outsiders

If a person had broken enough contracts to be disqualified for tuath membership, and was unpleasant enough to be rejected by a social society, they may still have access to some services; tuaths do not require their members to only service other members, and some are willing to serve anyone if they choose to. Or, maybe the outsider decides to become a hermit, and live under their own power. It's possible for them to do so, and apparently they dislike humanity enough to reach that point to begin with, perhaps long enough for many of the tuaths' statutes of limitations to expire. Perhaps they may even be able to join with other outsiders for mutual protection, and then return to the society as a brand new tuath.

Conclusion

There you have it, a basic society designed around mutual consent, without the violent use of government force to ensure a peaceful and orderly society. Anarchy without chaos. And this is simply one solution from the mind of a simple wonk; there's no telling what other alternatives happen if the free market is opened to the world of competing, non-violent government services.

Some Interesting Facts Regarding Government

Antisocial Personality Disorder is an affliction that effectively inhibits the moral behavior of an individual, in such that he will behave without thought or concern for another person, and possess no remore afterwards. This particular affliction is the perfect personality type for office in a government, especially that of a democratic office, due to the massive rinforcement such a disorder receives from the voting public.

Some characteristics of antisocial personality disorder include:

• Persistent lying or stealing.
• See below.
  
• Tendency to violate the rights of others.
  
• Prohibitions and regulations are prime examples of such violations.
• Aggressive, often violent behavior.
• Police in pursuit of regulation and prohibition enforcement
• Possessing a superficial charm or wit.
• Such charm is generally what wins elections.
  
• A sense of extreme entitlement.
• All people with a government-approved job are entitled to be obeyed.
• Disobedience to the demands of an "authority" is justification for attack (fining/imprisonment/tasing)
  

The above is enough, but an additional fact pretty much nails the coffin for all non-combative aspects of government, as well as the enforcement arm.

"A tax is a forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition, or contribution assessed . . . to provide public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses."
- 51 Am. Jur. Taxation, § 3, pp. 35, 36, 37 and 3

"Robbery: The felonious taking of money or goods from the person of another or in his presence, against his will, by force or by putting him in fear."
- 46 Am. J1st Rob §2

Government

When I talk to someone about my views on things, government will inevitably come up. This is usually because I don't believe in government services at all; I abhor them.

Why do I abhor government? Is there something wrong with me? Am I a terrorist? Or am I utopian? Perhaps a stoner? Is it possible that I just have something to hide, and I want government to go away so it can remain hidden?

Am I just a criminal who is trying to justify his criminal intent?

Everyone else falls someplace within two different spectrums, the individual-collective spectrum and the victim-aggressor spectrum.

The individual-collective spectrum identifies a person's tendency to take care of themselves vs. their tendency allow other people to perform the caretaking function. The individualist, one who believes in caring for themselves, is on one side, while the collectivist, one who believes in caring for others and having others care for them, is on the other side.

Individualists are generally those people who believe in self-sufficiency, in which they are able and willing to care for themselves, eschewing the assistance of others. Individualists are not as efficient in their endeavors as the collectivists, but an individualist can survive with the lack of a supporting community. Often, individualists are seen as rugged individuals who eschew society for the wild, savage wilderness of sparsely populated areas, such as the iconic US State Montana. In addition, individualists tend to be overly controlling, as they take responsibility for everything that happens to and around them... this can often result in a more aggressive attitude.

Collectivists generally congregate thickly in cities, and are the opposite of the individualist. Collectivists believe in the combination of skills to produce a gestalt, or the ability to get more result than the amount of work that went into the work. The division of labor is the key to a collective, and collectivists are generally willing to do so. However, a collectivist, who generally specializes in one part of the gestalt, could not survive outside of it, due to the distinct lack of the other skills the collectivist forewent. In addition, a collectivist will not be as likely to take responsibility for a problem, as it is the responsibility of the collective to solve it... this can often result in a more passive attitude.

A balance of the two is usually independent cooperation. Such a person will recognize the benefits of living in a society, and are willing to bend their individualist tendencies in order to benefit from a gestalt, as long as they are not held to the collective bent. This usually results in a market, in which stronger skills are willingly offered to offset the weaker skills in each individual.

The victim-aggressor spectrum consists of one's tendency to accept or give violence, either in response to an aggressive act, or initially. This spectrum is important, as it generally determines one person's likelihood to lead or follow, and is the key to the question of government's legitimacy.

The aggressor usually uses some form of violence in order to achieve their goals, even if there is no violence being directed against them. The common examples for this rule are robbers, murderers, and rapists. Aggressors usually use a weapon to achieve their goals, because such would lessen their need to expend energy in the pursuit of their goals.

The victim is the opposite of an aggressor; they perform out of a fear of the aggressor, willingly going along with any demand made by the aggressor, and expending additional energy in order to appease the aggressor beyond their demands.

In the balance of the two comes the confident person. This individual is not passive to the aggressor, but they are not aggressive against the passive themselves. They do not operate from a level of fear or arrogance, but from a state of confidence.

Now that we know the tendency of people in those categories, let's focus on the collective known as Government. Government consists of two things: the controller, and their fighters.

The fighters generally are the people who have weapons. They are usually numerous and well-trained in the art of harming and killing people, depending on the demands of their situations. They are, essentially, tools to direct the cooperative, and to intimidate and subdue the uncooperative. Any additional roles they may play is merely to make them more palatable to the cooperative, and to further hinder the uncooperative. By their very job description, fighters must be both collective and aggressors; victims will prove ineffective, and individuals will prove uncooperative to the organization's goals.

The controller is the leading body, whether the meaning of body is literal or figurative. It can be a single dictator or a group of people. They are often individualist aggressors; they are well-aware of their positions, and are unwilling to cede control to anyone else, except as a subordinate delegation.

Many single-body controllers in history gained that role as the alpha fighter, a fighter that represents the pinnacle of the combative and intimidation arts. This was often the case in societies where combat prowess was highly valued; an example would be ancient Sparta. This also applied to those who built empires through conquest, such as the Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires. Other such controllers gained their role through the supreme advocate, in which case they had the ability to sway large numbers through convincing speeches, thereby turning the controlled into fighters. Adolf Hitler and Vladamir Lenin are perfect examples of the specimen.

One thing to keep in mind is that the single-body controller has one glaring weakness: it has a single point of failure. If the controller were to be removed, either by combat or by assassination, the government would then completely shift to a new controller, which could be either good or bad for the people they control. A group-body controller consists of multiple people in control, is more resilient, but much less flexible overall than the single-body leader. This means that drastic changes take longer to complete, but are harder to prevent. Most of the current controllers are of this type; among the largest are the United States Congress and British Parliament.

Constitutions were an attempt by the victims to keep the controller from being too aggressive. This method depended on the controller being among their number, which is the basis for the electoral systems seen in modern governments, especially where legislature (demand-making bodies) is concerned. However, the problem with this scenario is that those positions will become enticing for the aggressors. After all, even with a constitution, there is more power in a political position than their is in a non-political position, and aggressors seek as much power as possible to expend as little energy toward their goals as possible.

Over time, the aggressors filter through the constitutional collective until they reach the positions needed to cut the filter off, giving them the power they seek. The more complete the constitution, the longer this process takes. This is because alpha fighters don't automatically qualify for the office, as per the constitution of the government. However, the supreme advocate has a tool that can undermine the constitution's foundation: language. True to their advocate nature, a supreme advocate can alter the meaning of words just enough to change the meanings of constitutional passages, rendering them inert against the original intent. This, combined with the long chain of supreme advocates making their contributions to the undermining, ends with a powerless constitution, and controllers in full control of the controlled.

Now, for those of you who don't yet get the connection, let's bring this back to the original claim: I don't believe in government services at all; I abhor them.

Ultimately, a government is simply a single individualist/aggressor person, or a group of them, in the controller role, using collective/aggressive people in the fighter role, in order to keep the rest of the population in the collective/victim role for their own benefits. What benefit? Well, to exploit the victims for creature comforts.

"That's too simplistic!" I can hear many shout. "They provide many services for the people!"

This is true to a point. The "services" are foisted upon the populace, and even chosen by the populace, but it is not just the willing that are charged for the service, and much of the charged funds do not go into the "services," but into the pockets of the fighters and the controllers, with the leftover monies being invested into the services. This is the key to the scam; ultimately, the members of the government uses the services excuse to force payment, even from those who do not agree with the services or payment.

In addition to the forced payment, there are also monopoly privileges enjoyed by the services. This means that the failure of a service can be used as an excuse for extracting more money, rather than the reason to find an alternative to do a better job. Of course, this doesn't increase the investment much, it's just better pocket-lining for the individuals involved. Don't believe me? Ask anyone the reason why "Government work" is so sought after, and they will tell you, in no certain order, "The pay is good," "Good benefits," and "Job security," and perhaps some more honest individuals will also go with "More authority," and "Immunity to (insert law here)." This isn't by accident.

I hope this at least gives you something to think about, the next time you assume that there needs to be a law, or that a program is going to be beneficial.

Survival in a world moved on...

A stereotype of the survivalist is a person who stockpiles weapons, food, and various pieces of technology toward the end of surviving the End of the World as We Know It.

This may be accurate for a good number of such survivalists, but I can't help but wonder why they would take such a limited approach to survival. Remaining dependent on the technology of a world moved on, no matter how useful, is simply delaying the inevitable doom once the stockpiles have been depleted on the vain hope that a particular society will reassert itself. As such, it is probably not a good idea to keep many years' stockpile of consumables against the possibility of the collapse of society, for whatever reason.

There is one form of stockpile that one should have: Books. Information on how to prospect, gather materials, craft, cook, garden, repair, and do various things to survive and even thrive on their own power.

You see, books do not go away once used; they are not consumable, but limitless resources, depending on the care you take of your books. With the knowledge gleaned from the books, you can create your own technology, specifically designed with your needs in mind.

Speaking of technology, it is also a good idea to take a few hours, and troll the patent office records (usually online) in order to discover the kinds of technology you could find useful. While patents don't matter after The End, there are plenty expired patents you can use if you want to make a head start. Download copies of the patents in question, and store those against the day you may need to make use of them to construct your tools for survival.

So, what skills does one need for survival after The End?

The first, and by far the most important, ability to have is the ability to collect water. You can survive for days, even weeks, without food, but if you don't have a source of clean water, all the survival skills are useless. While this would justify one's stockpiling of water, it would be a waste not to gain that source now, prior to any possible need for water. That way, it won't be a big change when public water goes away.

The second skill needed is the skill of farming; the ability to plant and reap food is essential to survival. Food will not come immediately; it takes several months of appropriate weather for the food to grow from seeds to fruits, vegetables, nuts, roots, and herbs. It is also useful to keep some animals on hand as well, preferably for eggs and milk, although having the bare minimum to start breeding would not be a bad thing, either.

The third and fourth skills generally work together. These would be woodworking and metalworking. The former is important for the construction of many structures, as well as for carving the molds for the metalwork. Metalwork is essential for the creation of tools and machines; the ability to cast and machine metal tools and parts allows the survivor to make any possibly-needed tool for the purpose of dealing with issues as they come up. Together with woodwork, 95% of all things needed for survival is within reach of the survivalist without needing to stockpile.

Another set of skills that compliment one another are spinning, weaving, tanning, and sewing. The ability to produce leather and fabric and fashion them into comfortable clothing using homemade thread will be very useful in the days where clothing is no longer available at the local mall. Having clothing patterns on hand, as well as the ability to duplicate and/or modify them for your own unique physiology would be essential to making the clothing to the standards you are familiar with. In addition, having a crop of cotton can only help you in this endeavor. Of course, it would be important to have the woodwork and metalwork skills to make spinning wheels, looms, and needles for the creation of your clothing, as well as the frames used to stretch the hides for tanning.

Some additional skills would be the skills of glassmaking/blowing (the creation of water-safe containers and panes of glass for windows), masonry and stonework (the creation of foundational materials, as well as solid surfaces to work on), and some sciences, such as physics, mechanics (use of machinery to manipulate physics to your advantage), geology and metallurgy (finding and identifying natural sources of metals), and chemistry (helpful in extracting metals from ores and the creation of useful chemicals, such as cleaners, purifiers, and volatiles such as gunpowder).

In addition, after The End, you will no longer enjoy the (relative) peace of peace enforcement, meaning that you will need to know the skills to protect yourself and your family. Archery and marksmanship would be essential for the purpose of using the weapons that the above woodworking, metalworking, and chemistry skills would be able to produce.

Despite all this, one thing to keep in mind is that if it is at all possible, don't isolate yourself. Even if you thrive in solitude, there is always something to be said for being able to find someone else when that isolation becomes a burden rather than a comfort. More importantly, even if you have every one of the above skills, you may not be as good at them as your potential neighbors. And, of course, if The End occurs, it would probably be beneficial to find a way to make a New Beginning.

Will this guarantee your survival? Perhaps. It would depend on the quality of the place you find yourself in; an irradiated area would be a lot less likely to support someone than a fertile valley. Use your best judgement, and make the best of your abilities. Use the collected knowledge to keep yourself alive until either society reestablishes itself, or is replaced with another.

The Benefit of Greed

"We need to rid the world of greed."

This is not only impossible, it is a very bad idea in general. If we were to get rid of the greedy, we would have nobody left. Yes, even the charitable types. Yes, even people like Mother Theresa. Obviously, this sounds like an extreme position. That is because it is an extreme position, equally as extreme as the first sentence but like all extremes, it is designed to make a point clear.

Think about this, why do people do what they do? Because what they do either makes them feel good, or it makes them feel less bad. Whether it's pleasure or guilt, the greed is nothing more than a motivation to push your life in the direction you want it to go. Some have the overwhelming self-control to limit that greed, but even then, that is because another form of desire is pushing against the more obvious desire; one form of greed is overriding another form.

So why am I advocating greed?

Greed is the primary force of will; it is the drive that all people have to make their lives better, happier, and more fulfilling. In many cases, they have a faulty idea as to what makes their lives better, but it is not the greed that is the problem, but poor judgment. It is also a case of not having enough information. In both ways, they are being driven toward a goal that they themselves aren't really aware of, and often are influenced by others who share the same set of faulty reasonings.

The most powerful forms of misinformation people suffer from involve money, influence, morals, and sex.

Money is a fallacy; money is nothing more than the middleman between two services, a way for something of value to be portable for barter. The idea that money is anything else is a mysticism encouraged by those who make money their business; marketing the dollar allows the dollar to be more important, and more important dollars mean more control over the people who use them.

There are many forms of influence. Friendship means you have influence with one other person. Popularity means you have influence over many. However, political influence is simply influence through threat. All government power comes at the point of a legion of guns, distributed evenly throughout an entire region. Sometimes these guns are hidden behind a suit jacket or a concealed holster in an unmarked car. Other times, these guns are proudly displayed along with a badge, uniform, and an obviously-marked car with flashing red-and-blue lights. But don't be fooled, these are nothing more than guns with a complex aiming mechanism called people.

Perhaps you are one of those "complex aiming systems?" Perhaps you take offense to my statement above? Perhaps you should consider the nature of your job. Follow orders, enforce laws, and arrest those who do not obey. As long as you meet those requirements of your job, then congratulations, you are nothing more than an aiming mechanism. If you only protect other people from forceful acts, and resist enforcing laws against consensual behavior, regardless of whether you consider the behavior right or wrong, then I can gladly say that you are not part of the problem, and you have my grateful respect for your profound ethics.

Speaking of "Right and wrong," morals are another faulty premise in today's society. Not that morals don't exist, nor do I believe in moral relativism, but the creation and enforcement of laws based on one particular group of peoples' personal definition of morals aren't exactly right.

Many religions have a "do unto others" clause; the idea that one must treat others with the respect they want in return. This is an excellent base to found moral theory, and certainly a good start for a system of laws. However, the problem is that the point of this clause is completely sidelined to its literal meaning to a society in question; it's easy to do things to others when they do something one doesn't. You don't mind someone taking guns away of you don't have one. You don't mind someone taking all food away if you don't need to eat. You don't mind someone shooting other people in the arms if you had lost yours. Yes, they're all extreme, but they make the point nicely.

The way the clause should be interpreted would be to consider a basic fact: you want to have a happy, fulfilling life. You have a set of goals in which you plan to achieve this happy, fulfilling life. You would wish that others do not interfere with your plan to have a happy, fulfilling life. This same kind of rationale applies to others as well: They want to have happy, fulfilling lives, too. They would wish that you do not interfere with their plan to have a happy, fulfilling life. If you respect them, as the clause demands, then you will respect their wishes not to be interfered with their pursuit, and they should respect your wishes as well.

In other words, as long as you respect that simple request from others, do what you wish to be as happy as possible. Of course, conflicts arise. However, violent action to resolve differences only results in more violent activity. In some cases, it is justified; they have broken the clause's rule, and you have every right to defend yourself. But if harming you or your property is neither the goal, nor the result of the other's actions, then you have no right to make demands of them, according to the "Do unto others" clause... because doing so would not be respecting them, and therefore breaking the clause's rule.

Sex is so over-rated these days. Poets and artists, scriptwriters and actors; wherever there is a form of media, you won't find sex and its emotional trappings far. Passions ignite to drive the souls of two people together, bound by destiny, for all of time, and against all odds, they shall conquer any and all opposition, and life itself. A lot of you are probably feeling pretty passionate right now after reading that sentence, aren't you? And why?

The sex drive is real. I won't deny this by any stretch of the imagination. We would not have populated the planet nearly as quickly without it. It is a scientific fact, driven by very real hormones developed by very real glands. And when two people perform the act, their bodies are flooded with endorphins, making them feel very good.

But, as a result, the people who reproduce pass on this endorphin rush during sex, and those who have an effective skill with words will give the rush a religious fervor. Over the centuries, the reinforced "good feeling" is translated to some mystic reality in which lovers are solely subject to, some kind of veil that one passes while in the throes of tumultuous passion, and the eternal connection of love that can defeat everything just by being.

In essence, people have convinced themselves that there is more to the sexual drive than the simple act and its attendant good feelings, that there is some form of connection that occurs. Then, when something happens and horrible, nasty reality sets in, the dream is shattered, and then the other side of the coin shows its ugly face; crimes of passion are cliché, but that is not because they are not common. Once again, they are operating on an overblown description of something that is much simpler and much less important than it is made out to be.

These four things often drive most of the implacable actions of people who are greedy, greedy for those things that they have decided are good, right, and much more than they should be.

Now, we have approached the original question, if all these things can make greed from a form of personal motivation to a corrupt form of viciousness, why do I still support the concept of greed? It is because greed is motivation, and without it, there can be no drive. Without greed, there is no desire for improvement in one's life, there are no goals, no ambition... no destiny at all. People will have no reason to do anything.

So, how does one control greed, and prevent it from being the out-of-control monstrosity we have?

There are two things one must have to keep something in control: something to channel it and something to oppose it. The channel for greed is knowledge. When people learn in the attempt to gain that which they desire, they have a way to channel that greed to a much better path. The opposite of greed is competition; and, when all greed is unchecked, nobody's greed is going to overwhelm the rest.

Of course, you may reply, what about governments? Are they not unchecked against the greed of their people?

All throughout history, empires have fallen. Governments have reached a point where the collective greed of the people, the collective desires and drives to achieve their needs have overwhelmed the previously-overwhelming government. In such cases have governments been overthrown by revolution. Sooner or later, the balance will always return.

Assumptions and the Paradigm

Everything one thinks and reasons is based on a set of assumptions one has. These assumptions color the perception one has in the world, and as a result, they solidify what one "knows" to a point where they are often unwilling to acknowledge those things that conflict with those assumptions.

The full collection of assumptions come together into a paradigm. The word "paradigm" is based on the Greek word "paradeigma," which means "pattern" or "model." This is an apt description; a pattern of thought based on the threads of one's assumptions of reality make up a person's paradigm.

So, if a paradigm is a model of reality based on one's assumptions, what happens when an assumption changes? The whole of one's perception of the world changes with it. The paradigm shifts, and with it, one's thinking. Interestingly, once a paradigm changes, it puts other assumptions into a new light, revealing the flaws that encourages those assumptions to be rejected, replaced with new, more correct assumptions. The whole process of changing one's underlying assumptions to view the world in a new light is known as a Paradigm shift.

With any luck, this blog will encourage a paradigm shift for you... or at least give you something to think about.