ArchiveCategory Archives for "Solutions"
The future may be circling the drain, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
The future may be circling the drain, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Over the last 10 years, I have been building a regimen (augmented by ad hoc remedies) that has now evolved to the point where it has fixed my blood pressure. A few days ago, I decided to not renew my prescription on its last day, and instead, I started an enhanced version of my regimen at the same time – and it worked … fast! I started seeing results by the morning of the third day.
Previously, I had already fixed my arthritis, my back pain (from herniated disks), a hemorrhoid, high blood sugar, kidney stones, gum disease, sub-optimal psychology, irritable bowel syndrome, precancerous skin lesions, and respiratory illness.
The catalyst for this article was when I suddenly decided a few days ago to quit my blood pressure medicine after more than six years because I was tired of the shakedown. You may be familiar with this shakedown. It works like this: When your prescription expires, you need to find a doctor to give you permission to buy more. You know you need it, and it’s your body, and you buy it with the fruits of your own labor; but the doctor thinks it is his right to first make you sign away all your rights, pay him, visit him, give him your blood, and make promises to obey.
Try buying medicine without a doctor’s permission, or try competing with the doctor to provide medical services – you will go to jail, and yet, their advice hasn’t been very helpful to me, and has often been wrong. I guess that’s why they need protection from competition.
I pretty much don’t need them anymore, but did I really beat the cartel … given how Obamacare makes me pay them anyway?
During the shakedown, you may even have to become an actor and pretend that you will follow the doctor’s advice when you may already know better. You must also assert that you are a very happy and well adjusted person (which I always am) who respects the doctor and doesn’t think he is part of a cartel or that he is perpetrating a shakedown; otherwise, he could have you detained for days, drugged, and put on the no-fly list. BTW, the CDC is requesting the right to indefinitely detain you. The doctor could have the government take your kids and your right to keep and bear arms – just on his whim.
Just like the police, the politicians, and the rich and famous … doctors are above the law.
Calling it a shakedown by a cartel is thus an understatement. It is also cronyism, fascism, and tyranny.
I propose the following guide/pledge for the members of a mutual aid society.
I make a non-legally binding pledge to uphold the following principles regarding my interaction with every sentient being:
Integrity – I will act with integrity, which means my principles will be consistent with each other. My positions (and beliefs) will be consistent with my principles. My decisions, actions, and inactions will be consistent with my principles. My life will be consistent with my principles. I will make personal sacrifices to live consistently with my principles. If I discover that my position is out of sync with my principles, then I will change my position. The end does not justify the means, which means that I will not violate my principles to promote my principles.
Open Minded – I will always be open to the possibility that I am wrong and that someone else is right.
Tolerance – I will be tolerant of that which does not violate my principles.
Responsibility – I will accept the personal debt I incur when I violate my principles. I will not appeal to government for aid.
Curiosity – When something is out of the ordinary or violates my principles, I will investigate.
Courage – I will overcome my fear to be true to my principles – my fear of pain, embarrassment, peer pressure, and the unknown.
Independent thought – I will trust my ability to think independently.
Honesty – I will not misrepresent myself or others. I will not obfuscate. I will not be evasive. I will not cheat.
Peace – I will not initiate force, violence, or physical aggression. I will not be passive aggressive. I will not be unnecessarily divisive. I will not respond to words with force.
Nobility – I will honor my agreements. If I created an expectation, I will try to honor it. If I would have agreed to someone’s unstated terms, then I will try to honor those terms now. I will treat others as I would like them to treat me – even when responding to an initiation of force or fraud. I will not invoke government against others. I will be a good neighbor. I will not be a dick.
Progress – I will leave the world a better place than if I had never existed. Not to be confused with American Progressivism, which violates many, and perhaps all, of my principles. I will actively promote my principles and positions. I will not shut down debate. I will be a maker – not a taker.
I make the following non-legally binding pledge regarding my interaction with all other individuals who make this pledge.
I will offer mutual aid first to anyone I choose, then to those in my pod, then to those in my decapod, then my hectopod, then kilopod, etc.
I pledge to uphold first any amendments to this pledge made by myself, then by my pod.
I will support any unanimous decision made by everyone (including me) in my pod.
History began with the Rule of Man, which is where those who make the law are not accountable to those under the law, and those who make the law are above the law. The law is thus likely to be inefficient, subjective, arbitrary, and applied unequally. Government under the Rule of Man is illegitimate because people only support it under duress, and no competing law is allowed. Government under the Rule of Man is also a monopoly on the right to initiate force or fraud within a geographical boundary.
A great leap forward from the Rule of Man was the Rule of Law, which is where those who make the law are accountable to those under the law, and no man is above the law. Unfortunately, government under the Rule of Law is still not legitimate because most people support it only under duress, and no competing law is allowed. Like under the Rule of Man, government under the Rule of Law has always been a monopoly on the right to initiate force or fraud within a given geographical boundary. These remaining drawbacks with the Rule of Law are harmful in their own right, but they are also the seeds of its inevitable regression back to the Rule of Man – unless we evolve further.
The next great leap forward will be the Rule of Market, which is where the law is a product like any other. An individual could produce his own law, or choose one of the products produced by others, or choose no such product at all. The market would be the judge. Government under the Rule of Market would allow competition, and few, if any, would purchase law that claimed the right to initiate force or fraud against them.
In the Rule of Market, the law is voluntary – just like any other product. In fact, everything is voluntary. Even money is just a product like any other.
How Rule of Market Works
It will be necessary to look at some everyday examples to understand the Rule of Market because, although it is quite simple, it is quite difficult to understand given a lifetime of conditioning by television and government schools and universities. Such conditioning promotes a single groupthink while squashing the imagination, independent thought, and critical thinking skills that would allow one to escape the groupthink.
We will look at two everyday examples. In the first example, you will have discovered that you entered into an unfair contract. In the second example, you will observe how the Rule of Market deals with gang violence and how tragedy is eventually overcome with hope and unlimited potential.
In both examples it should be clear that Rule of Market is simply individual freedom, which has always been more compatible with human nature, and which unlocks the healthy potential of self-interest, competition, and reputation, whose benefits are further magnified by today’s tools, such as the Internet, cameras, and guns.
Breaking an Unfair Contract
Eventually, under the Rule of Market one could be confident about entering into any kind of agreement without being cheated or tricked, but to see how such harmony would have evolved, it will be necessary to go back to an earlier point.
Suppose you voluntarily entered into a contract with another party because, although they had a mediocre reputation, they offered terms that were just too good to pass up, which they had to do to compete with those who had better reputations. Then you discovered you were tricked, and so you decided it was in your best interests to only fulfill the part of your contractual obligation you felt was fair. You would then be wise to make your case on the Internet for two reasons. The first reason is because in the future, other parties (the market) would look at your reputation and decide on what terms (if any) they would be willing to enter into any given type of contract with you. The other reason is because the other party will be making its case on the Internet as well, and the claims by the other party could hurt your reputation if you allow them to go unchallenged.
You would be wise to hire an advocate to help you produce your side of the story. The role of such an advocate would be similar to the purpose of a lawyer today.
You would want to maintain an online presentation that explains how your principles would guide you to react in certain scenarios and how you are defining your terms. You could think of your statement of principles as your law. One purpose of such a presentation would be to let potential partners know what kind of agreements you might find acceptable as well as what to expect once you entered an agreement. Another purpose would be to make it harder for anyone else to misrepresent you, and yet another purpose would be a guide for your children. Your statement of principles is another place where you could hire an advocate to help you produce it.
You would want to hire one or more reputation rating companies to publish an evaluation of your side of the story. Let’s refer to such companies as Reputation Bureaus. Such a role would be similar to the purpose of a credit rating agency. Each reputation bureau would decide whether your actions were consistent with the expectations you created with your statement of principles. They would decide the extent to which your actions were justified given the objective facts of the case, and they would decide the extent to which your actions were justified given the ambient culture. They would also be evaluating your side according to their well publicized rules, which could be thought of as their “law”. Then they would adjust your reputation score accordingly, and of course, the weight of their decision would depend on their own reputation. Every reputation bureau would have an independent rating for you.
You would want to pay more to choose a reputation bureau with the best reputation, which is one that understands it cannot afford to ever appear biased or to have cheated in any way. Otherwise, its rating would carry far less weight with others. Its reputation would also depend on its law being fair and unambiguous.
Note that if your statement of principles and your contract used common components found in other statements and other contracts, then evaluation would be easier and thus cheaper. On the other hand, if you are like me and insist on a custom statement of principles, then you should expect to pay more.
Suppose the reputation bureaus you hired decided that your actions were consistent with your stated values and were thus expected, and that overall your actions were mostly justified both objectively and given the ambient culture. Also, your actions were mostly acceptable under their law. Therefore, given a potential future contract, the other party would probably just look at your reputation score and decide that they would be willing to contract with you (in spite of your having broken a previous contract), but that party might for a slightly higher interest rate (or slightly more collateral) to reduce its risk.
We chose your case because it was a tipping point. Your reputation bureaus each decided that to some extent the other party had intentionally tried to trick you, and that their behavior was part of a pattern, and thus they dinged the other party’s reputation considerably. The other party knew this was the likely decision and thus hired their usual reputation bureau who they could depend on to give them a good rating. However, a few years of propping up the bad behavior of such companies had also cost their reputation bureau some of its reputation.
Just as the other party’s reputation had been propped up, their reputation bureau’s reputation had been propped up by other dishonest reputation bureaus. Over time the dishonest companies and reputation bureaus had learned they could only depend on each other to maintain their reputations, and thus they were vulnerable to sudden crash – like a stock market bubble that had gotten too out of sync with reality.
Your case precipitated a cascade over the next few months where the other party and all of its cronies lost most of their reputation with the honest reputation bureaus and thus lost most of their business so suddenly that they had to liquidate their assets, which were bought up and put to better use by their honest competitors.
The people called it creative destruction.
Given just the one example about breaking an unfair contract, it should be clear how one would finally be free to pursue one’s dreams while simultaneously choosing to act more responsibly – all because one would value one’s reputation even more than one values one’s credit rating today, but the full benefit of the Rule of Market goes so much deeper than that. It could apply in any conceivable day-to-day scenario, and thus one’s reputation would be more important in every conceivable scenario.
When every person in every scenario is finally free to pursue their dreams while having a powerful incentive to act more responsibly, then the result can only be more peace, safety, productivity, innovation, wealth, and happiness. The advent of the Rule of Market would be the dawn of a new renaissance like nothing we have ever seen before – a never ending Golden Age beyond anything in history.
Unfortunately, we are no longer moving forward. We are now moving backwards towards the Rule of Man. For example, Obama claims the power to spy on anyone, to indefinitely detain anyone, and even to assassinate anyone without due process, without accountability, and without transparency, and he has already exercised all of these powers.
We are moving back to the Rule of Man because governments are absolutely terrified of the Rule of Market because it is becoming clear to the people that the primary purpose of government is to force a majority to give their time, to give the fruits of their labor, and to even give their lives and their children for a goal they would not find worthy of such sacrifice … such as wars, pyramids, cronyism, propaganda, censorship, reeducation camps, false flags, genocide, slavery, redistribution of honest wealth, and disarming the people.
The End of Violence
Next, let’s explore how violence would be virtually nonexistent in a society built on the Rule of Market. First, we would have to go back to a point before the initiation of force and fraud had become almost non-existent to find out why such behavior had become so rare.
Suppose a society had adopted the Rule of Market not quite three years ago, and some people still did not value their reputation. In this case Leroy’s daughter Jada had dated a young thug, Jamal, who thought his gang membership protected him from the Rule of Market.
After Jada decided to end the relationship, Jamal decided to break into the family’s home at night and make her leave with him. He brought his four badest gangstas with him and they all had Glocks.
Before the advent of the Rule of Market, the gang’s strategy would have worked, but under the Rule of Market, families had changed. Most people understood that every family was responsible for its own safety and completely free to provide that safety. Most people also understood that everyone’s future had become unlimited, and perhaps most importantly, most people understood that everyone had become free to do the right thing.
Leroy and his neighborhood guardians always did the right thing, and their individual reputations reflected that; whereas, Jamal and his gang, the last gang in their neighborhood, often initiated force or fraud, and their reputations reflected that.
Jamal did not understand that under the Rule of Market, most people, including Jada, had developed hope and a sense of self-esteem. She would not come back to him like other girls had done before. She had thought she could change him, but she now understood that she could not.
Jamal shot the door several times and it would not budge. The gang then had to expended about 90 rounds before they were finally able to kick it in. This only took 50 seconds, but they were pretty mad at this point because they had first encountered a door like this just two weeks before, although in that case no one had been home and they had been in no particular hurry. The only thing Jamal and his gang had learned from that experience was to wear hearing protection when shooting a door. Jamal did not learn how lucky he was that no one had been home.
Leroy and his neighborhood guardians had known that Jamal and his gang were likely to try this. It was their MO. That is why Leroy, at great personal risk to himself, had tried one last time earlier that day to explain to Jamal and his gang why they should disband like the other gangs.
Leroy tried to convey the hope that had spread through the community, and through the whole damn country. He tried to explain how they were living the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream. They were free at last! But the gang followed the Reverend Dr. Al Harpton Varakan Jackson, who preached how the country owed them and had abandoned them.
Leroy explained how Jada wasn’t like girls around there used to be and how Jada was proud and full of hope, but that just made Jamal more determined to take her.
Those 50 seconds bought by the reinforced door were sufficient for Leroy and his man inside and the two guardians nearby to take up their positions. One of them was so nervous that he suddenly laughed out loud when he remembered how they used to say, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
As they kicked the door in, Leroy had a chance to yell “stop or we’ll shoot”. Jamal and his gang took that as a challenge because they were wearing class II body armor that had stopped 9mm rounds before. They did not understand that their body armor would not stop a 5.56mm 62 grain round. Hence, they didn’t give Leroy time to say anything else.
Leroy had been very careful not to disrespect anyone in the gang earlier that day – even when they tested him, which they interpreted as a sign of weakness, but they let him go without harm. He didn’t dare tell them about the two snipers watching over him, or they would have reacted in a way that would have cost them their lives. When Leroy got home, he cried for a long time.
When Jamal heard Leroy release the charging handle on his AR-15 somewhere deep in the house, he did not understand that someone was truly willing, let alone able, to stand up to him. No one had done that before, and besides, he had his gang with him, and they had body armor.
The gang each had only two or three rounds left because they had never needed spare magazines before. They randomly fired all of their remaining rounds in about three seconds – hitting nothing. No one was within 30 feet of them.
Three seconds later they were all on the ground dying, and the guardians came to them at great personal risk, and tried to help. The adrenaline would not yet let them feel the emotional weight of the tragedy before them – the lost potential of these young men – what they could have been – until a dying gang member whispered, “I could have been a doctor.”
In just a few seconds, all of the guardians had begun sobbing uncontrollably, and the whole neighborhood came out and sobbed with them.
The guardians hired the best reputation bureau they could afford. They even sold some possessions and borrowed some money to do it. It was that important.
The company’s name was The Soul of Humanity because its law was based on The Soul of Humanity. It was physically based in Austin, Texas.
The guardians had not been able to afford the video surveillance that would have exonerated them more quickly and more thoroughly, but given the relative reputations of the survivors and the deceased, and given the testimony of witnesses and the reputations of those witnesses, the reputation of the guardians had actually increased. Nevertheless, they had killed, and there was no video, so they would be on a kind of probation for a about three years.
The story became a national story, and the The Soul Of Humanity gave them each a one year advertising contract worth fifty times the fee they had paid. That was more than the going rate, but that fact only added to the good will and new business received by the company.
One month later a sniper killed the Reverend Dr. Al Harpton Varakan Jackson, and no one cared enough to investigate. In his arrogance, the Reverend had refused to pay money to “the man” to buy insurance to investigate any initiations of force or fraud against him. Even his personal body guards lacked the will to do anything about it, nor did they have the skills to do anything about it.
Gang activity in that first year had skyrocketed before being fought down to its original level. Then it fell to 20% of its original level during the second and third year. but with the story of Leroy and his guardians, gang activity in the forth year dropped to 1% of its original level.
It would not be accurate to say that the gangs simply dissolved, instead, most transformed from thugs into guardians. Those who were once takers had become makers.
Who will build the ROADS!?
The advent of The Rule of Market was widely understood and anticipated, and yet, some people had still been apoplectic with shrieks of “Who will build the ROADS!?” In a nutshell, the answer was, “The same people who build them now.” After all, how did we get the cars that drove on those roads, or computers or smart phones, and our houses, and the roads in front of our houses … ? Of course, what such alarmists had really meant was, “For each new road, who would force dozens or even thousands of people to give up a piece of their land?” The alarmist minority needn’t have been so apoplectic because it worked out exactly as most people expected.
The third such incident under the Rule of Market was the Springfield Bypass. It would raise the value of all property directly along its route, so everyone along the route wanted it and were thus willing to pay for it; whereas, some of those owning businesses along competing roads might lose some business and thus were not willing to pay for any of the bypass, so they didn’t. However, there was one individual land owner along the ideal route, Mr. Schittstein, who would also benefit from the new road but who was holding out as a way of extorting the others to give him money.
In the first such incident, the holdout, Mr. Freeman, had good reason to believe that he would lose a small amount of business, so his neighbors compensated him. However, in the second such incident, the holdout, Ms. Princess, would have actually benefitted, but the people had decided to pay her anyway because she had not been excessively greedy. Furthermore, the reputation bureaus did not yet have sufficient precedent to ding the reputation of Ms. Princess. The example of Ms. Princess emboldened Mr. Schittstein to insist on too much money. He asked for 95% of the cost to route around his property safely, so his neighbors called his bluff and built the road around his property. They felt the 5% extra cost was, as one neighbor put it, “Totally worth it.” The result was known locally as, “Schittstein’s Curve,” which, his neighbor’s learned, gave Schittstein an odd satisfaction.
Occasionally, the folks along the Springfield Bypass would offer to pay to replace the bypass with a route through Mr. Schittstein’s property, but no matter what they offered, he always held out for more. He had understood that even with the best of safety precautions, this was to be the first such bypass, and thus someday, some oversight might cause someone to get hurt if the road were forced to go around his property, but he had been unmoved, and his reputation did not suffer for it given the early stages of the Rule of Market. Subsequent extortion was dampened, fortunately!, as the reputation bureaus rapidly adapted.
Although it would have been immoral to go back and judge Mr. Schittstein by rules that did not exist at the time, needless to say, Mr. Schittstein was the kind of person whose reputation would plummet in the future if he did not learn to treat others as he would like them to treat him, but whereas, most people learned such lessons very quickly under the Rule of Market, Mr. Schittstein did not. Eventually his wife left him as his reputation continued to plummet until, one day, tragedy struck …
There had never been an injury on the Springfield bypass, but Schittstein’s neighbors, the Goodmans, had relatives coming in from out of town to show off their new baby. They were tired and had let their teenage daughter drive the last little bit. Her inexperience combined with Schittstein’s Curve had banged them up pretty good, and in an improbable confluence of events, it had cost them the life of their newborn infant …
It was virtually impossible to get away with violence under the Rule of Market, but the Goodmans were not thinking clearly when they forced entry into Mr. Schittstein’s house, where they proceeded to beat Mr. Schittstein to death as he continued to display a total lack of remorse to the end.
The reputation bureaus, had plenty of precedent by this time, and the relative reputations of the Goodmans vs. Schittstein combined with the video footage from multiple sources was such that the verdict from every bureau was, in the vernacular, “Schittstein had it coming.”
Just three years later, the amazing golden age brought by the Rule of Market had produced the kind of wealth and innovation that would have saved the Goodman’s baby, but such wealth and technology was never needed in another such case because in the 75 years since, there has not been another Schittstein under the Rule of Market.
Next, read Rule of Market vs. The World.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
More specifically, government is, and always will be, the tool of those who cause the problems.
Better legislation does not work.
Eternal vigilance does not work.
Better candidates does not work.
Transparency works. In the eternal war of makers vs. takers, transparency is the only way government can be anything better than a force multiplier for the takers.
Transparency works, which is why we don’t have real transparency. In fact, the lack of curiosity in the media is truly breathtaking. It seems almost as if the establishment media exist solely to fabricate a sufficient illusion of transparency to prevent revolt, but of course, we know they also exist to fabricate other illusions, such as the illusion of representation (e.g. They fabricated The Myth of Obama).
Given the entrenched forces resulting from so many generations without transparency, extreme measures will be necessary for about a generation. Therefore, I propose a new Freedom Amendment – The Transparency Amendment:
The Transparency Amendment
The President, Vice President, and every member of the Congress shall wear a device to capture the surrounding video and audio every second of every day while in office. Failure, for any cause, to publish all content to every citizen within one hour of capture by the device shall constitute forfeiture of office. Publication to a web site shall be considered sufficient to meet the requirement to publish to every citizen. Once published, such content shall remain continuously accessible to every citizen in perpetuity. Intentional or accidental removal or disabling of the device, by any cause, shall constitute forfeiture of office.
This amendment shall also apply to the Chairman and governors of the Federal Reserve, to all federal judges, and to all justices of the Supreme Court.
This amendment shall take effect sixty days after ratification.
This amendment shall expire twenty years and sixty days after ratification.
The Honest Labor Amendment would disqualify candidates like Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama because only those candidates who had performed sufficient honest labor would qualify.
Let’s first define what we are calling honest labor. Honest labor complies with honest laws, competes with other honest labor, and is voluntarily exchanged with another individual who voluntarily traded the fruits of his own honest labor.
Now let’s explore what is not honest labor.
By definition, governments spend money they either borrowed, printed out of thin air, or collected from other people by force. Governments also tend to forbid competition with their services. Governments ban the fruits of some labor, subsidize other labor, and even force us to buy some products and services. Governments even compel people to serve in their military. Therefore, any labor performed for a government is not honest labor.
The legal profession is a special case. Everyone knows it has a dishonest reputation and is intimately dependent on government, but perhaps more important is that about 90% of Congress has a law degree, and Congress has an approval rating of 11%, and our goal is to improve Congress …
Even work done by private sector doctors is not honest labor because doctors are protected from competition.
Volunteer work is also not honest labor because even those rare volunteer jobs that avoid the taint of government are not a two-way trade.
Therefore, very few people actually perform honest labor, but we don’t have to be purists to make an effective amendment. The Honest Labor Amendment merely needs to be fair, effective, and enforceable.
The Honest Labor Amendment
No one shall qualify for the Congress or for the office of the President of these United States without having first performed 10 years of labor separate from government and independent of individuals and organizations receiving government funding.
We’ve always had enough information to know what to do:
A progressive once asked me one of their most effective (and most dishonest) questions, which has thrown everyone off his game whenever I have seen it used,
In a free market, who would save a dying child from a poor family?
The most honest and most effective answer, in the context of the question, is …
In a free market … the child wouldn’t be dying …
How has our culture forgotten this wonderful truth … that in a free market, the family would be wealthier, the community would be wealthier, and the technology would be better and cheaper.
Government is not the solution.
Government is the problem.
Government dependency has failed.
The path forward is the free market.
In a free market, more people would be willing and able to help him.
In a free market, the child is not only more likely to survive … but is also more likely to thrive.
What you’re really asking is, “What can we expect for a dying child if we move towards more government dependency vs. moving forward to a free market?”
In a free market, competition without the burden of government maximizes quality, efficiency, and innovation – not just in the medical field, but in every field. In a free market, the people are thus safer and healthier, happier and wealthier, more productive and more empowered.
A cure would be very profitable if the inventor were allowed to profit from it, and thus the inventor could start a new company, so we should be seeing more and more new companies in a free-market, but we don’t because we don’t have a free market. We have heavy government intervention, and thus we see fewer and bigger pharmaceutical companies.
Not every company has a drug to treat (but not cure) a given disease, so why wouldn’t those companies release a cure both to profit and to hurt their competitor? The only possible reason is government intervention.
The problem is that government intervention exists to thwart competition. Of course, that is not how intervention is sold to the people, so the people demand more intervention. The solution to government is not “more government”. Government is a problem masquerading as its own cure.
Given free-markets, who would save a dying child?
Given free-markets, the child wouldn’t be dying.
Anyone who has kids and who loves their kids would choose the free market over government intervention
Those I’ve seen answer this question all failed because effective defenders of the free market are not allowed in the mainstream media. This is a self reinforcing strategy of the MSM. Consider that it is very difficult to become an effective supporter of the free market when we are inundated 24/7 with an inaccurate world view. The reality is that we do not live in a free market, big government has failed, and government is the tool by which elites manage innovation.
Only by thinking for ourselves, can we discover reality.
Freedom is the Promise of Reality.
Innovation must be managed. Innovation can empower the little guy and make him think he doesn’t need those of us having superior genes to make decisions for him.
Innovation can make the serfs uppity – in the vernacular, as it were. For example, the Internet Reformation makes many serfs feel like they are just as smart as (or smarter than!) we are! Therefore, we can’t have unbridled innovation, or else we might get another Internet Reformation before we can stop it. We have yet to complete our control of the Internet itself, so we certainly can’t allow another black swan event like that.
It is true that unbridled innovation would be necessary to support the exponential growth in serf population, but there were already too many serfs anyway. The earth has limited resources, and only those having superior genes deserve to inherit the earth. Slower innovation will thus reveal the urgent necessity of our final solution, which will thus become more acceptable to those elites and useful serfs who were previously reluctant about what must be done.
Slower innovation is thus a good thing.
We elites are right wing extremists, but we spend much of our resources promoting progressivism, fascism, socialism, communism, collectivism, unions, and political correctness – not just because they make the serfs more dependent – and not just because they help us divide the serfs against each other – and not just because they always blossom into an oligarchy of the elite – but also because they slow down innovation. Our conscience is clear because a majority of serfs freely support us in our promotion of all flavors of collectivism.
The serfs have known that the free market works best for them for at least 400 years, and they still choose to sacrifice their children’s future for the short term trinkets we give them. It is their choice.
The free market is an abomination that punishes our superior breeding and rewards that greedy lower class mentality. The free market is anarchy. The success of the common man in the free market is thus proof of his inferior genes. That is why – that government is best, which regulates most.
The serfs have all the information they need to know that we cannot compete in a free market, but they still vote for regulation. It is their choice
When we promise them other people’s money, they have all the information they need in order to know that they are those other people. Therefore, if they are blinded by their greedy lower class collectivist mentality, then that is still their choice.
We promote equality. We support multiple factions because we cannot allow any one faction to be strong enough to unite the people against our good ideas. Likewise, we cannot allow any one person, company, or nation to be too strong, which is why we must take down America, or more specifically, the American people. Equality is thus a necessary evil towards the end goal of a healthy and natural hierarchy.
The American people overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic and Republican parties, and yet, Americans have all the information they need to know that both parties are controlled by our front men. Americans also have all the information they need to know that the Democratic Party moves our good ideas forward faster.
While it may seem like we already have enough control to implement our good ideas, we must also monitor every communication, every financial transaction, and every politically inclined meeting in order to detect and prevent the destabilizing effects of potential black swan developments such as whistleblowers and Zero Squads. Zero Squads are terrorist cells of 3 serfs each, known only to each other. Each cell will have chosen one of the smartest and most superior elites, and because of their inferior breeding, they will not hesitate to die if necessary to take out their target. If you see something, say something – and thereby prove your usefulness.
We reveal our plans because everyone must freely choose, and thus our conscience is always clear. We simultaneously offer powerful temptations that will only deceive those who willfully ignore reality and who thus have inferior genes.
We thus respect: those who know that when we are all on the same page, we all benefit, and those who know that we have the right to implement any good idea, and those who know the end justifies the means, and those who accept their place.
Conformity and hierarchy are thus not a necessary evil. They are a necessary good.
Some elites claim that our principles of conformity and hierarchy make us no different than the serfs, who we manage by appealing to their desire for conformity and hierarchy. What these elites seem to forget is that the reason we are superior is because we are smarter. Conformity among the serfs is only wrong because they are imitating those with inferior genes, and hierarchy among serfs is only wrong because they are following those with inferior genes.
Although we are the most highly evolved humans, a new theory posits that conformity and hierarchy are actually the Soul of Animals, and are thus the peak of animal evolution, and that the peak of human evolution is the Soul of Humanity.
Some elites accept these theories, but it does not change our plans because we are thus acting in self defense against the encroachment of the perverse evolutionary course referred to as the Soul of Humanity. Without conformity and hierarchy, the Soul of Humanity is incomplete and would lead to anarchy! One could thus summarize our goal as a crusade to kill the Soul of Humanity, although most of us just see it as killing off reactionary genes.
Some elites claim that the Soul of Humanity is very much like our founding principles, and that we have lost our way. Such elites have obviously been deceived by our own propaganda intended to pacify the masses.
The 2oth century saw the rise of collectivism, where progressive governments impoverished their people and killed or imprisoned hundreds of millions who failed to conform. Progressive government caused all of the biggest problems of the 20th century, such as The Great Depression, eugenics, total war, weapons of mass destruction, targeting civilians, reeducation camps, taxes, regulations, government dependency, entitlement mentality, identity politics, pollution, inflation, stagnation, authoritarianism, democide, and genocide.
Libertarianism was created (or rediscovered) in the late 20th century by men who wanted to create the most ethical, the most logical, and the most natural society, and thus, libertarianism is that system most compatible with the Soul of Humanity; whereas, those who oppose libertarianism are motivated by the Soul of Animals.
Libertarianism has many roots going back to non-conformist visionaries such as Friedrich Hayek, and to Lysander Spooner before him. In fact, Libertarianism is basically the founding principles of America, which have roots all the way back to Plymouth Rock and Jamestown.
Libertarianism is individualism.
The premises of Libertarianism, along with some exposition, are:
The universe and all non-sentient life exist for the use of sentient life.
All individuals have equal rights. The law must apply to everyone equally.
It is always wrong to initiate force or fraud for any reason. For example, fight words with words. It is always wrong to fight words with physical violence.
Every individual owns himself, and thus he owns the fruits of his labor. For example, slavery is wrong because no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor. Likewise, free healthcare is wrong because no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor.
As an extreme example that would probably rarely happen in reality, an individual can sell himself. No one has a right to buy, sell, or own other individuals; however, an individual owns himself and thus has the right to sell himself to another individual according to whatever contractual mechanisms are mutually satisfactory.
No one can be trusted to work for the self interest of any individual better than that individual. All things being equal, no one knows the self interest of any individual better than that individual. No one has any right to determine the self interest of another individual.
A man is not an animal. To reach the full human potential, a man must use his brain, he must create, he must communicate, he must form agreements with others, and he must trade the fruits of his labor. Any interference in his effort to think, create, communicate, cooperate, and trade is thus immoral and unnatural.
Individuals have a right to cooperate with each other, and thus individuals have a right to form any kind of marriage, business, cooperative, union, etc. Likewise, an individual has a right to choose any willing individual as his representative.
Whether or not one is cooperating with other individuals, every action is an individual action. There are no collective actions. The actions of a group are always the individual actions of one or more individuals in that group.
For example, the corporation did not give your data to the government. It was someone inside the corporation who did that, and it was someone inside the corporation told him to do that. Likewise, if your were arrested for video taping a policeman, the government did not arrest you, it was the policeman who arrested you, and the government did not pass the law that authorized (gave immunity to) the policeman who arrested you, it was individual legislator who voted for it.
You have a right to cooperate with any individuals in any way that is mutually agreeable. For example, you can hire or fire whoever you want. Therefore, affirmative action, sexual harassment, and Title IX are an initiation of force by government. Such government promotion of any race or gender is also a violation of equality under the law.
No collection of individuals has any greater rights than an individual and thus no collection of individuals can initiate force or fraud for any reason. For example, neither a union, business, nor government can initiate force or fraud any more than can an individual. No collection of individuals can force anyone to join them or force anyone to support their organization.
If an individual voluntarily agrees to a contract that stipulates punishment for violating that agreement, then that punishment would not be an initiation of force.
An individual has a right to do anything to his property.
Although an individual can own a part of nature, land is different than all other property because it predates all buyers and sellers, and thus an individual has a right to do anything to his land – other than make it unusable.
The existence of a species also predates all buyers and sellers, and thus no one has the right to cause the extinction of a species.
Taxes are unethical. Only user fees are ethical. For example, a gasoline tax is actually a user fee for roads, National Parks have entrance fees, etc.
An individual can inherit unlimited money without taxation, not because he has the right to the money he will inherit, but because the owner has the right to give it.
Libertarian principles are superior to the opinion of a majority because it is a logical fallacy to claim that might makes right.
Libertarian principles are superior to the opinion of a ruler or an expert because appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.
Does libertarianism work, or is it just a noble theory?
Consider that government deserves no credit for everything that makes life worth living. Did government invent transistors, fire, and love? Even when government invents something specific, it always causes a net reduction in growth and innovation across the nation.
Consider that America was governed by the Articles of Confederation when it won its war of independence, and thus the world’s superpower at that time lost to the most libertarian nation that has ever existed.
The Constitution distinguishes between the states and the District of Columbia, and it authorized only the states to vote for the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Therefore, the residents of the District of Columbia were not allowed to vote for the President or the Congress.
In 1961, the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution enabled the residents of the District of Columbia to vote for the President – but still not for Senators or Representatives.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
The reason that the Constitution prevented the residents of the District of Columbia from voting is because that would have been such an unhealthy conflict of interest.
The intent was clear, but the mechanism was clumsy and inadequate for the leviathan that is government today, so why not amend the Constitution to let the residents of DC vote, while removing unhealthy conflicts of interest across the nation?
Such an honest voter amendment could lead to very small numbers of voters in some places like the District of Columbia, so let’s also fix the electoral college while we’re at it.
The Honest Voter Amendment:
Only an individual human being may vote.
One may not vote while one voluntarily seeks employment with the government, loans money to the government, borrows from the government, receives a check from the government, or works for a business that sells goods or services to the government.
No American citizen shall be compelled to serve the government, loan money to the government, borrow from government, or work for any business or individual.
States in existence as of the end of 2013 shall retain their original count of senators. A new state or district whose proportion of the nation’s eligible voters is less than one tenth of one percent shall have no Senators. A state or district whose proportion of the nation’s eligible voters is equal to or greater than one tenth of one percent, but less than one half of one percent, shall have one Senator.
If a state is formed by secession of more than 50% of voters from another state, then both parts of the former state shall be considered new states for the purposes of this amendment.
To remedy federal laws and orders that promote extortion, one may not vote if one has attempted to secure employment, promotion, compensation, or any non-mutual transaction, for oneself or as any form of advocate, by having coerced any individual, or organization of individuals, with the threat of government action.