Thursday, October 4, 2018

The Amoeba of Socialism

They talk about "creeping socialism" and its very true.  So true in fact that I thought I would write an article on how much socialism is like a creeping sickness.  Cancer is like that.  Life is fine... for years... and then all of a sudden your doctor says you have cancer or you feel a lump or you just don't feel well.  The problem was growing inside you for many years but you felt nothing.  Sugar is like that.  It's really a poison but its also very addicting.  That's partly because the bad guys in your system, those anaerobic, acid creating parasites and bacteria, love sugar.  And so they will emit toxins into your body that make you not only crave more sugar but also give you a high when you eat it.
Somehow, God seems to have designed little things that can overwhelm the big things when conditions are right.
The same thing goes for social organisms.  Mankind is very much a social creature and managing society can be difficult.  The individual is the smallest unit of society and has very little power to stop a mob from killing him.  So government was invented, usually run by the most powerful war-lord in the area.  Refinements have come over time and typically a visible or invisible oligarchy forms to control the society either openly or secretly.  In our historically unique society we managed to create a social contract that limits the government and uses laws and legislatures to determine how exactly that government will prevent society from destroying itself by crime, collectively or individually.
One of the insidious ideas for social control is democracy.  It's a method of governing by the least amount of pain.  If the majority agrees, it tends to quiet the minority and usually seems to work out well.  But democracy is very much like the sugar addiction and over time it creates social structures that actually damage society in the long run.  Pursuing the least pain is not always the best way to go.  Pain has a reason for existing but just killing the pain is not fixing the problem that caused it.
A case in point I would like to elaborate on is how fire departments become one of the ways a creeping socialist agenda can get into a community and control it.  I live in a rural area of Idaho County that was for many years protected by a volunteer fire department called the "Ridge Runners".  This was a free association of neighbors that all took responsibility for protecting their own homes and land from fires and banned together to stop the a fire on one person's property from affecting the rest of the neighborhood.  For several decades the "Ridge Runners" effectively fought fires with a perfect safety record and for an amazingly low cost.
Over time, however, we have seen in this area a series of incidents and situations that have made fire protection more costly, less effective and  has actually divided our community into warring factions over issues we never had to deal with before.
Around 2007 the RRFD (Ridge Runners Fire District) was created and a board structure came into being manned by local people that wanted to help by "leading".  When the 2015 Kamiah fire storm hit, I attended a few meetings brought together by these "leaders" to mobilize the community to fight possible fires in our area.  Everyone was anxious to help but it appeared over time that the "leaders" deemed much that was offered as unnecessary or not effective and much of the community was turned off by this kind of attitude.  It seemed that the local "leaders" were a bit miffed at this animosity and turned control of the district over to people that were not from this area and didn't even own land in the district.  Then came an offer from the RRFD to solicit voluntary subscriptions for fire protection.  Seeing very few people respond to this request the RRFD then proposed to the county commissioners that a taxing district be set up.  In response to this, the next county commissioner meeting was full of community members telling the county that we did NOT want a taxing district.  Despite the overwhelming popular opposition to the idea the county commissioners decided to put the issue on the ballot.
Today we are soon to vote on that issue and local community members have been getting together to try to stop this from passing.
Our area is rapidly growing in population and this is giving a sign to many that this is an opportunity to begin to administer this area in a more standard way that towns and cities are run and the first thing to establish is a well funded fire department.
The people in this area are used to doing things their own way and they do not like the creeping bureaucracy and taxes.  Many are poor and on limited incomes yet own significant amounts of land.  Tax increases will force many out of the lifestyle they are accustomed to and many will simply have to leave or split up and sell of their property to survive under these costly practices.
Imagine trying to stop an Amoeba from crossing a line.  It's tentacles slowly proceed, a little here, a little there and before you know it you have bits of it on your side of the line.  You try putting up a fence but it seems to just flow through it.  You warn it by chopping of pieces of it and it retreats... for a time... only to later on continue its process of creeping across the line.  Eventually the Amoeba has completely crossed the line and the only way to stop it is to chop it in two with an axe.
We have a line for government not to cross.  It's called a constitution.  We also have a weapon of last resort to stop the government from crossing that line - our guns.
The problem is, Amoebas move slowly and deviously.  They can go through the tiniest cracks and they move so slowly that you don't see them even moving at all when you take a quick glance at them.  The other problem about fighting these kinds of creeping monsters is that when you respond, it is relatively quick and violent.  It makes you look unreasonable.  The Amoeba was there for a long time before you finally responded - sometimes creeping over generations.  It had established long precedents of trespassing its boundaries and no one objected.  And because our social Amoeba of government is actually US, it appears even more that resisting the will of the system seems like an unreasonable crime against the collective, even if such resistance is meant to fix a problem.
This is why republics were invented - a way to limit the majority's power so that it wouldn't eventually eat itself with greed.  The core of a republic is a social contract that only gives specific powers to the government and often splits the powers of government among separate branches to force it to compete with itself instead of with the people.
Alas, over time, even the best social contracts can have a flaw.  Even the tiniest flaw enables the Amoeba to escape eventually.  Our US Constitution, for example, had 14 flaws in it pointed out by the Pennsylvania Minority Report not long after the ink was dry.  Of those 14 flaws, 10 were addressed in the bill of rights but unfortunately the last 4 were not.  Those 4 flaws have now been used to completely breech the contract and we have the Amoeba creeping into everything these days.
When citizens are vigilant and awake, the Amoeba can almost appear to be petrified.  It moves so slowly or sometimes even waits for a new generation to appear before it creeps on in again.  This is why "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom".
The Amoeba is fed by human nature.  This is why it cannot be completely eliminated - it is the dark side of US.  But it can and must be fought constantly and YOU are who must stop it on your watch.

Saturday, August 18, 2018

The next wave

I couldn't say this any better then Stefan Molyneux:

 This video explains the history of human management or human farming.   It's very clear and concise and I can't offer any improvement to it.  We are coming into possibly a new phase of human management or the complete removal of it.

I wonder if a theocracy is next?

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Dimension A and B

The NoAgenda show, a popular media deconstruction podcast, has invented the terms "Dimension A" and "Dimension B" to describe a complete separation in worldview that has happened within America.  The separation between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" has become so wide that each sides' perception of the facts are completely different and a new vocabulary has evolved for Dimension B that has increased the divide even more.
I recently had an exchange with an old work friend of mine on facebook and the divide between us is so great that it is nearly impossible for me to discuss political issues with him in a rational manner.  This is because our opinions of what is true and right are so different.
The evolution of the Dimensions
Having come from an extremely conservative family with membership in the John Birch Society at the age of 9, I can give you a pretty aware perspective from Dimension A of what has happened.
In the late 50's, prayer and saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" in school was a regular thing and was uniform throughout the country and of course we were only teaching in the English Language at that time.
As I grew up within the public education system things slowly moved away from the American centric view of life and history as the Education system, the mass media and Hollywood steadily emitted data to push people to a more world-oriented multi-cultural viewpoint.  In the 60s this was gentle.  In the 80s it was getting pretty blatant.  By 2000 it was crazy.
I give you some cases in point from a few experiences I've had over my lifetime.
Experience 1 - truth lost from the textbooks
Having been an avid member of the John Birch Society I was very up on all things published by them and had met most of the leaders in the society personally.  I knew what a "Bircher" was inside and out.  Our Social Studies teacher was going over our textbook's description of the JBS which flatly labeled the society as "racist",  "fascist", "anti-semetic", "extreme" and "right-wing".  These are labels were invented by the media and were used to trigger readers into an emotional response.  They do not have accurate definitions and indeed, in class, these labels were never clearly defined except by association.  This is known as "Neural Linguistic Programming" (NLP).  Just ask yourself, right now, what EXACTLY do these terms mean?  Ask a few people for a definition, you will find vague and differing responses - mostly emotional based.
I explained to my teacher that we had "black" speakers on the JBS speakers bureau - trying to thwart the "racist" label.  I explained to my teacher that "facism" is a form of socialism where the government works with business to control the means of production and distribution of wealth and that the JBS was completely against all central control of the means of production and distribution of wealth.  This was to thwart the "facist" label.  I explained to my teacher that the JBS was not anti-Jewish or anti-Israel in any way to thwart the "anti-semetic" label.  I explained to him as well that "extreme" is a term that is very much relative and doesn't really have any kind of accurate meaning in and of itself.  At best this term could mean that something is "very different" from "normal" which has no true connotation of good or bad - it's just different.  And finally the term "right-wing" is poorly defined by the school system on a scale of left (wants change) to right (doesn't want change) which is equally an arbitrary relative term that in and of itself means nothing.
In response my teacher said his favorite line: "I don't want to get into semantics" and then posited that "It's in the textbook so it must be true'.  My many years of JBS membership and intimate familiarity with its teachings and leadership was of no effect to him, and so my class gets a biased input from the textbook.
NLP is used in the media all the time and was developed by advertisers to get people to buy things without thinking.  I believe Dimension B people are all victims of this NLP from their youth.  Critical linguistic analysis has been obliterated from their brains.  This is the "new speak" of George Orwell's 1984 and causes a person to accept "Cognitive Dissonance" within their thinking without realizing it.
Experience 2 - secret curriculum
I had a social studies teacher in my junior year of High School that began showing us an Alan Toffler video called "future shock".  I remember it positing how terrible it was that we had so many choices to make in our free society.  This was simply overwhelming the minds of people as they walked down the deterrent isle of their local drugstore.  I knew most parents had no idea their kids were being subjected to this crap (this was in the early 70s) so I decided to write an Op-Ed article in the paper informing parents of this curriculum and simply asking them to visit the school and check it out.  Everything in the article was true.  I was simply reporting what I had seen and experienced.
The next day the principle told me to retract the article.  I asked him what was not true about what I said.  He couldn't give me any examples of inaccuracies in my article but insisted I retract it.  I suggested he write a rebuttal.  There was nothing he could do and the teacher's experimental curriculum was quickly canceled as parents were asking what was going on.  All I did was blow the whistle so ignorant parents could be alerted to check into what their kids were being subjected to.
Experience 3 - blatant media bias and election tampering
When I was attending junior college at Diablo Valley College in Walnut Creek California, in the 80s, I witnessed something quite striking.  Ronald Reagan was running for president and the local TV media was looking for a way to smear him. Election tampering I would call it.  They approached our local "American Opinion Bookstore" which is a JBS reading room and book sales outlet.  I knew the owner personally.  They asked the owner if he would let them interview a local conservative and politically active pastor at the bookstore.  They also asked him if he knew of any active Birchers of college age.  This brought me into the picture.  They called me up and asked me if we had any "activities" they could film.  I explained that all we did was meet once a month on campus (there were only 3 of us) to write our congressmen.  They wanted something more "active" so I offered to put our books on sale on campus a few weekends from that time so they could film us selling books.
On that same weekend they scheduled the interview with the pastor at the American Opinion bookstore.
I showed up at the early appointment at the bookstore and met the cameraman and interviewer from the local TV station.  They asked the bookstore owner if he has a meeting room with a conference table.  There was one located on the second floor so we all went up there for the interview.  The room had a long conference table with a bookshelf at one end and the interviewer expressed that this was "perfect".
I sat behind the cameraman who set up his camera at the end of the table opposite the bookcase and the pastor sat at the bookcase end of the table.  I then saw how the cameraman set up the shot to go low along the table towards the pastor.  It made the pastor look quite important with the long reflective table in front of him and the books behind him.
All of a sudden, the interviewer pulled out a large American Flag and placed it vertically behind the pastor in front of the bookshelf.
This was a complete set-up.  The pastor now looked like Patton (the movie had just come out) and no matter what he said he would look like a super-patriot.  I saw the shot through the camera - it was amazing!  That pastor could say anything and would still look like a wacko.  Who talks in front of a giant American flag except some right-wing nut?
After that fiasco I went to college to set up our book table with our 2 other birch students.  We were pretty excited that we might be on TV!
After awhile some youngish guy who definitely was not a student at our small college showed up about 200' from us and began to shout out what I would describe as "sound bytes" of provocation.  He was yelling about the Vietnam War, economic issues, whatever.  It didn't really make sense to me but it was beginning to attract a crowd.  All of a sudden the TV camera crew showed up and started filming this guy and now the crowd became huge.
I saw what was going on and told my fellow members not to argue with him but just smile and stay at the book table.
As time went on the guy yelling sound-bytes began to work his way slowly towards our book table.  He was clearly a professional agitator and we refused to fall for it.  We just smiled and listened to his nonsense, giving him no ammo to argue with us.
Finally he gave up and went away and the interviewer appeared with the camera crew to interview us.
We were each interviewed one at a time and the interviewer had a specific question for each of us.  I don't recall what he asked of the others but for me he asked me this question. "Do you believe a Communist can be President of the United States?"
I tried to explain that such an idea makes no sense because communism is antithetical to a republican form of government such as ours.  The interviewer kept asking me to "shorten the answer".  As hard as I tried to explain that the question was simply preposterous, he kept asking me for a shorter "sound byte".  Eventually I simply had to answer the question as "no".
That evening, on the TV news, was a short story on "Reagan Supporters" and our interviews followed, all cut to just what they wanted us to say.  The pastor as well was shown with just a short few words but the imagery of the table and flag said it all.
This was a clearly premeditated attempt to influence the election by interviewing the most right-wing type people they could find and boxing them into questions and imagery that gave the idea they wanted the audience to get.  There was absolutely no real interest in our views at all.  It was a complete show.
Experience 4 - a setup media event at UC Berkeley
UC Berkeley is well known as a hotbed of leftist activities and protests.  Drugs, sex and rock & roll all the way.  I was attending UC Berekley in the early 80s pursuing an engineering degree.
One evening as I was walking home from class I passed through a quad area and noticed that there were carpenters building small shacks all over the area.  I also noticed they were building several open stages that allowed someone to stand about four feet higher than anyone else.
I decided to bop by this quad the next day and saw several buses arrive with hippies.  They appeared to be from Santa Cruz, smoking pot, long hair, and clearly not UC Berkeley students at all.
By that evening the media was set up with TV cameras on the open stages all facing a building on the west side of the quad.  The hippies had taken residence in the shacks and the quad was full - but I didn't see a single person that looked like a real student to me.
That evening on the news was a big story of a protest at UC Berkeley over some announcement the Dean of the collage was making.  I don't recall the gist of what he said but the whole event was apparently an attempt to pass some kind of legislation at the state level.
The next days the hippies were all gone and the quad was a mess of shacks and trash.  Janitors and construction crews were dismantling the shacks and stages and cleaning up the quad.  Within a few hours, you'd never know anything had happened there.

These two media events are the most blatant first-hand examples I have witnessed of media bias.  They were planned and executed by the media, for the media (or their sponsors or owners) to alter our elections and effect legislation.  These were political actions designed to accomplish specific tasks with no regard for truth or honesty.
The textbook event was a blatant example of lies in the textbooks using NLP techniques to program student's minds to accept preconceived notions that had nothing to do with truth or honest history.

I find it hard to explain these things without a conspiratorial context.

Since that time the bias has become worse and worse.  The lies on lies on lies have piled so high that unless a person takes extra effort to learn the truth of things on his own via alternate sources of information, it is impossible to know the truth.

So this has now created two different world-views.

Dimension A are those that have done a bit of homework and have found that the majority and the media and the movies and even the schools are lying to us.  They are naturally seeing conspiracies everywhere because the media as a whole makes no sense.  They see the cognitive dissonance as simply scams and lies.

Dimension B are those that have accepted the NLP programming and have accepted enough lies to believe the carefully orchestrated history painted for them over decades of mis-education and mis-information fed to them.  Because it appears that the vast majority of people agree with them, they rest in a state of sleepy fuzziness not even realizing that that "majority" of supporters are merely an image projected by the mass media, movies, and their education.  They are emotionally committed to their views and cannot step-back enough to question their base information because it threatens their entire world view.  It is simply not possible to accept the idea that "everything you know is wrong".

Enters Trump
Now enters a winner of an election that none of Dimension B thought could ever have won.  All of a sudden, it appears there are a LOT of people out there that don't agree with all the NLP media bias Dimension B has been fed.  The media is doing everything it can to trash this man and the DBers are swallowing it.  Because they rely on their NLP induced emotional responses, they are becoming violent in protests and abusing anyone that might oppose their views with an alternative view.  All the NLP inputs over their lives are kicking in and they are going mad with cognitive dissonance.  To them the world is collapsing and all the socialistic "good" built up in the past 70 years is appearing to dissolve before their eyes.  Trump is insane.  He is racist.  He is sexist.  He is every label they can come up with.
Trump grabbed a ladies crotch (a fact I am not sure is really true) and is despicable in every respect.  Meanwhile his predecessor, Obama (real name Barry Satoro) has been living a secret homosexual life with a transvestite, takes drugs, and has broken most of his campaign promises and lied (proven) publicly on many occasions.  The two men are not held to the same standard.  This blatant bias is simply not even perceived by the DBers.

Thus I get a facebook post like this: (NLP labels marked in red)

Your definition of racism is too narrow. Racism is judging and treating others differently based on their race, in particular when those with privilege continue this pattern against a historically oppressed group. Racism can be unconscious, and is systemic in our society (why do blacks get longer prison sentences for the same crimes? Especially when the judge is republican?) Referring to alleged racism of (some) blacks is sheer whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right, and doesn't justify trumped up white grievance. Trump is hated because he is a horrible person, a pussy grabber, a bully, an egomaniac, a swindler, a crook and a liar. He is hated for his obscene racist lies against Obama. He is hated for his destructive roll back of aid to Africa which is killing hundreds of thousands, he is hated for his petty vindictiveness. People hate him for appointing people like Zinke and Pruitt who are destroying the agencies they head and undoing all their progress over recent decades. They hate him for his cruel policies that separate children from their parents. I personally strongly object to his position on climate change. What he has done against the environment is inexcusable. He has set back our progress in tackling climate change horribly, and many people will suffer as a result. He is objectively the worst president we have had in recent history.

Most of these words are emotional in nature.  They are not objective.  The writer does make some objective points which to correct here for a DBer is impossible because I must undo layers of lies injected over decades of propaganda.  I don't say Trump is perfect or even "good" necessarily, but he is a typical politician like the last 6 presidents we have had - but this one is getting blasted by the media constantly while the others were held up as "respectable" even though their sins are certainly no less than Trump's.  Trump appears to me to be at least attempting to keep the promises he made during his campaign, something that to me is refreshingly unusual.
Just trying to undo the bias and emotionalism around the word "racism" would take an entire post or more to just explain how this term has become so emotionally overloaded as to trigger violent outbreaks from DBers and to bypass all rational thinking.
So with that, I suggest my readers start listening to the NoAgenda Podcast for some good media bias analysis that MAY, in time, help to reunite us as a nation with a set of facts we can agree on or at least a healthy skepticism of the media that prods us into looking a little deeper before going off the deep end.  No agenda isn't right or left.  They are two guys that look at things differently but both trying to find what is true behind the stories we are peddled every day by the M5M (mass media).
Enjoy your education - it will take some time.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

A review of some patriot ideas

I warn you before I ate you
This video is an excellent example of the common-law patriot arguments I have heard for decades.
I have been sympathetic to this message for years but have always had reservations, which is why I still pay my taxes and still have a social security number and am still out of jail.
If you want to view this first, that might be helpful.  It's ok, I'll wait....
Ok now you see that this video introduces a lot of history and new definitions for words we commonly use, especially those involved in commerce.
I have no objection to these ideas but they are just that, ideas.
There is evidence to show that the conclusions of this video are possibly true in that we have actual acts by governments that subjugate the common man to criminal acts by the elite.
But this is not new.  This is how it has been since Nimrod.
The core problem I have with this kind of message is that it is not doing justice nor is it granting mercy.  It is calling for rebellion.

The evils we live with are so deeply entrenched, even into our own subconscious, that it appears impossible to extricate ourselves from it.  Even our justice (Just-Us) system is simply so corrupt that even the best patriots can't break through to truth and justice. (Bob Schultz comes to mind)
But rather than "trust and obey" and wait for God to invoke his wrath and judgment upon the earth, we patriots are determined to "fix" it.  That is not bad if you do it like Schultz does but that is not how much of the patriot fighters generally behave.
This video sites no sources.  It's language comments site no etymologies. It doesn't name names.  It simply presents an argument that we have been enslaved.  It seems to think there is a solution but it does not specify what that might be.
The only way to properly do justice is to present evidence of a crime by someone to a victim before an objective judge that has authority to execute that judgment.  The criminal must be named.
The problem is, we just don't have such a judge to appeal to at this time.

King David said on his death bead (2 Sam 23)

But the godless are like thorns to be thrown away,
    for they tear the hand that touches them.
One must use iron tools to chop them down;
    they will be totally consumed by fire.”

We see that the evil we have to fight with harms anyone that tries to stop them and must be handled with a rod of iron.  This means that the only way to remove this evil from us is in the hands of a benevolent dictator - a righteous king.
This tells me that we will defeat this foe only with the help of Jesus after his second return when He will rule this world with a rod of iron.
I look forward to that day (which may be coming to fruition even now).
All this understanding of the Babylonian system of trickery and slavery we are under cannot be removed by our efforts.  I think it is good to teach the precepts in this video to help people avoid the system as much as possible but realize that rebellion will not free us - it will only make things worse.
We are in the second great captivity and that age is soon to come to an end.  Not by our works but by the will of a much higher authority.

Live honestly and humbly and, with as much justice and mercy as you can muster, wait patiently upon God to fix it all.  Look up for your redemption draws ever closer.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

The overwhelming issues we face

The other day I realized that even though I continue to learn new things every day and much faster than I ever did in the past due to resources like search engines and YouTube, I know a smaller percentage of what is known each day due to the rapid rate of overall knowledge growth.

I must admit, I may be done trying to understand this world - it is a hopeless task.

It is easy to just complain about stuff and to create a list of problems the world has that need solving.  It is really hard to fix them.

But the first step is to identify them.

I have always felt I was pretty good at identifying core problems and finding solutions to them.  I am going to attempt that here.

We live in the middle of a huge paradigm shift.  Our society (at least the non-evil subset) I believe is truly trying to solve their problems.  Due to technology advancements, we are now under a huge stress to solve these problems quickly  - before we are all dead.  

Normally things advance generation to generation with the old guard having to die off before the new guard can really move.  Today, we don't have the time for this.  We have probably less than 10 years IMHO before the problems we face will utterly crush us as a civilization. 

But all is not lost!  I believe God is moving in these times and we are coming into a great new world, the millennium in fact, but to get there we are going to have to cross some really rough territory.

For the morose in the audience here are some of the main issues I see a major problems in order of importance:

Lack of Justice
Around the world, the courts are not administering justice but simply facilitating theft and corruption.
Juries no longer have any power
There almost no checks on the judiciary
Lawyers work within a monopoly called the BAR association that creates effectively private law.
Restitution is hardly ever practiced.  Punishment is instead used which extracts wealth into the justice system without really offering a deter ant to crime.
Its corruption is accelerating and the entire system is almost completely non-functional.
The shift to AI
For a long time I was a disbeliever in AI.  I still maintain that it will never replace human creativity but it appears it will replace normal human cognition and logical processing.
AI systems can far out-learn people because their ability to input data far exceeds a person.  Thus they can grow more experienced far faster than men.
This shift will remove almost all jobs for men to do - except fix the AI.  I know when the industrial revolution happened, many feared the same result, but each time we advanced, there became more advanced jobs to do.
I hope I am wrong because what I see coming is the complete dominance of machines over men and soon men will be disposable and slaves.
Global Governance
It has long been a goal of the evil elite to centralize control enough to reduce the population yet preserve the technology so that a very small elite can rule the world.  I think these people are deluded and will lose in the end along with all of us.
What I see happening is a race of controllers against anti-controllers.  The new technology of the internet has briefly given the anti-controllers an edge but once the technology is mature enough, I see a war coming that will simply decimate the population and leave the evil controllers advantaged.
Cultural Stress
These problems and especially the simply overwhelming advancement in technology is driving many people nuts and totally disfunctional.
This is exacerbated by the drug and food companies that are polluting our minds and bods with toxins that are leading to insanity, dysfunction an death.
Education, a tool of the elites for control, is producing people that are so out of tough with reality that the work-force is breaking trying to figure out how to assimilate them.
All these trends are accelerating and feeding themselves.  Our collapsing economy is driving businesses to better exploit their customers and use immoral approaches simply to keep afloat.  
The lack of true individual integrity is driving this engine into the ground of a new dystopia.
How to fix it

Increasingly, from all corners, I am hearing people say "God will have to fix this" and I tend to agree.  Will we see a miraculous coming together of events and people that brings us justice and peace?  That's historically a pretty rare thing to see.  I am hoping God is up to it.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Secret yet ac-"count"-able voting

This is a kind of short version of the post.
There is a simple way to fix our election process to almost completely remove fraud, count it quickly and make it easy for anyone to review and check the counting of the votes.  Computers can be used to assist in adding columns of numbers by using well-known common tools like Excel yet with personal and public oversight of every single vote.

Here's how its done:

  1. Print up each ballot with a random number that is long enough to not easily be memorized yet short enough to conveniently write down.  It only has to be non-repeating for the precinct and for that vote.
  2. At the polls count the ballots by entering into a spreadsheet the ballot random number and how the votes were cast for each ballot. 
  3. Do this with as many (at least 3) independent backup counts as desired and simply compare the spreadsheets by saving them as .csv files sorted by ballot random number and then comparing the .csv files using a standard diffing tool programmers use all the time to note changes in files.
  4. Once all the spreadsheets jive (all discrepancies have been resolved among the various counters), post one of them for the precinct up on a website which the county uses to show everyone the votes for each precinct.  The entire spreadsheet is posted along with a summary of the counts that is easily verified by summing the appropriate columns in the precinct spreadsheet.
  5. These summaries are in turn entered into another spreadsheet to add up all the precinct votes for the county.  This summary spreadsheet is posted as well on the same county site.
  6. Do the same thing for the state and federal levels by having them simply copy the summaries from the lower level sites and summarizing those as needed.
Now what you have is a public record anyone can double check in as much detail as they might like.  The physical ballots would be stored at the county level and anyone can go and check that they jive with the precinct spreadsheet publicly posted online.  Any voter who decided to write down their random ballot number can verify their votes were entered correctly online and can call the county election people to report anything that doesn't fit with what they remember voting for.  There could even be a way to electronically report any discrepancies you see with either the sums or your personal voting record.  If multiple people report problems with the same random ballot number - we know somebody screwed up.  If many people find the sums aren't right, we can fix that pretty easy.
A recount can be done very quickly and check to any depth at any time by anyone with little bothering the government at any level with the exception of viewing the original ballots.  Even these could each be scanned into an image file for public scrutiny while the physical ballots are kept safe to verify the images are correct.

With such a system, we can't necessarily correct all errors but we can know how many there are and can quickly get statistics comparing precincts to know when fraud is likely.

Also, all absentee ballots should go away.  It is of critical importance that all votes be made on the same day in person with ID required and at a local precinct where most voters will be recognized.  

Anyone that knows they can't make it to the poling place can simply grant a specific power of attorney to another individual who can use that and the IDs of both the voter and his/her proxy agent with the desired votes noted on the power of attorney letter which must be signed and notarized for acceptance.  Dead people will never be able to vote if this is enforced.

This is so simple and it is so efficient and "transparent" - I hope we can make this a reality.
Pass this on if you agree -especially to your representatives at the city, county, state and federal levels.

Monday, October 31, 2016

"The most dangerous superstition" by Larken Rose: a retort

An anarchist friend of mine highly recommended the book "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose.
This will be a difficult argument to make because we live in a world with so much ignorance concerning rhetoric and law that few are able to work around the numerous pitfalls we all face.
I believe Larkin's definition of "Authority" is more accurately termed "Unlawful Authority".  The concept of lawfulness is something we have lost almost entirely.

So let me try to describe a lawful form of "Authority" first.

I believe there are only two types of lawful authority:

  1. External Lawful Authority - the authority derived from the simple maxim of law that states "The Creator is greater than the Created".  This defines private property.
  2. Internal Lawful Authority - the authority derived from a promise.
To understand External Lawful Authority, one must accept the primary maxim that some intelligent and powerful force or person created all that we see.  If this is not accepted, there simply is no basis for External Authority.  Specifically, External Lawful Authority is derived from the Torah laws from God himself - or you could call it the natural morality written on men's hearts.  If you don't except the concept of a creator and you don't accept his right to make the rules for what he made, then you will never be able to justify private property or the maxim that gives us External Lawful Authority because it must come from a creator to be self-consistent.

To understand Internal Lawful Authority, one must simply agree that promises are worthless unless they are kept.  This is actually derived from External Lawful Authority because we accept that God keeps his promises and thus so should we.

If you don't except either of the above premises, you can stop reading here.  There is nothing I or anyone else can say to convince you that any kind of "Authority" is legitimate.  But before you leave this blog article, consider what mankind will have if a promise need not be kept and private property doesn't exist.  This is the anarchy people fear and it is precisely these two things that civilization, even a small clan, cannot exist without.  I doubt even Larken would oppose private property or keeping promises as these are the foundations of what his Utopian idea of anarchy would use to operate.

So lets build on this a bit with some basic examples:

Parent-Child Authority

Clearly the parents are the direct creators of the life of their children.  They are not the ultimate cause, as this gift of reproduction was given to them by their creators and on up the generations to the first man who was created by ???.  A baby clearly does not have the ability to even survive without someone around to feed, clothe, nurture, house and otherwise take care of it.  This parent-child relationship is probably the most obvious, most universal example of external lawful authority one can find.  It even translates to the birds and the bees.  Only in the case of cell division or parasitical reproduction is the child immediately an independent and fully responsible being with no dependencies on its creator.
Though our current society would like to pervert this into the extreme opposite of "reproductive rights" the consequence of doing this for all people is extinction.  If one values death over life then one would not want external lawful authority to exist.

Private Property

My body is under the sole authority of my mind and spirit.  My will is exercised by invoking neural commands to my body to perform actions that effect my world.  Without this ability to exert my will unhindered upon my body I would instantly die (from not breathing among many other possible causes).  When one exerts labor to create a tool of any kind or to secure a resource, this extends my control beyond my body to whatever it was I created or secured.  This is very simple until two people both want the same resource.  This is where property rights end and where some external collective structure is needed to decide who gets the resource.  Without such a collective structure, violence or complete dominance of one party is almost assured.  
Larken would argue this is not true.  That the collective structure is far more prone to exert violence than the two parties trying to control the resource.  
How ever the collective structure determines who gets what, there needs to be some kind of enforcement of the decision, else the contest for dominance simply continues with another challenge or one party clearly dominates, not by right but by might.  How ever you color it, the stronger party wins, and the more a stronger party wins, the stronger that party gets, till you eventually have a single party with all the power and everyone else his slave.  This is what happens when you have no government (collective structure) to decide and enforce such things.  War becomes a constant at all levels.
This is what makes government such a useful servant but a fearful master.  The collective structure must have enough power to do its job and no more.  It must constantly be watched to prevent its growth outside of the desired limits - this is exactly what the founders of our constitution understood.
They were, however, faced with the same kinds of wrong ideas that Larken points out in his book. I agree with Larken that the acceptance of unlawful authority is a very true bane to freedom and keeping this collective structure useful.  Those that have given some thought to the maxims of law will understand how we can create and maintain such a proper level of government and not get burned.
We lost control of our government probably within 20 years of its creation in the United States.  It is now so far out of its box it does not resemble the servant blessing our fathers gave to their posterity. This happens so quickly because of the maxim that all men are naturally evil - something most atheists and Larken don't accept.
Without an external collective structure there is no way to keep any boundary in place or to have private property without violence or at least the immediate threat of violence.  Larken would say that this is fine - and it is true with or without government, but limited government minimizes violence when restricted to lawful authority. See my articles on this blog on the Micro Republic/Jury governance for one possible solution to this very difficult problem.

The Contract

This is simply the structure of a pair of promises.  Lets say I have a fence that needs to be built and I hire someone to built it.  I obtain the materials needed (through other contracts of course) and my worker agrees with me on an exchange of his labor for a price.  
The promise is in place but not yet consummated.  We have expectations accurately set but not yet met.  This is the precarious situation that determines how strong a civilization can be.  If the character communication skills, and integrity of the parties is strong, the odds are very high that the promise will be consummated completely by both sides and the transaction completed within a short period of time without even the threat of violence.  The longer the time period of this precarious situation, the lower the probability is that it will be completed.  If one side of the transaction is completed, the longer the time is that the other side is completed also increases the probability that the entire transaction will not complete.  When we have a half-breach of a promise we have a damaged party to deal with.
Presumably, such a promise is made with an eye to a win-win situation, where both parties benefit from the transaction, otherwise why would such a contract be created in the first place?  Thus, most contracts will result in the production of wealth overall and this is how society grows.
If no transaction is ever completed within a society, that society simply does not exist.  It is a collection of isolated individuals working independently and from scratch on every goal they may have.  It is near impossible for a person to live on this earth without any cooperation from someone else for very long.  Thus, such a society would be extremely likely to be dead in a short period of time if it didn't make and honor its promises.
The bigger the promise the harder it is to keep and large societies depend regularly on huge promises being kept all the time.
During this intermediate period of time, we have a lawful internal authority of each party upon the other to perform what they promised to do and when they promised to do it.  Recognizing this authority as a society strengthens every contract made and thus the society itself - simply by peer pressure.  This universal authority of the promise is what authorizes the use of force by others if necessary - it is in a real sense, a self-defense right of the society to enforce the promise and thus support its own existence.
Now governments almost always get in the middle of this and extort fees, taxes, regulate what promises can be made, and generally interfere with this whole process that creates wealth for society.
Our constitution holds the right to contract as an absolute right - which has been violated almost constantly even before the ink was dry - but is really the core of social progress and the most precious right we can have.  All other rights derive from the right to contract.
As a side note, our constitution created a limited government and the ratification of the people of the constitution was evidence of the consent to the contract - but the minute government breaks one tiny piece of that contract - the whole promise is broken.  This we have failed to realize, rather wanting to keep things as they are (recall this point in the declaration of independence) we allowed the promise to degrade over time into the despotic socialist empire we have today.  Really, the minute government breaks any of the requirements of its constitution, is the minute it must be considered to no longer exist lawfully and thus a new one must be made to take its place immediately or the offence corrected and its re-occurrence made more difficult by adjustment of the system.  We in fact live in a de-facto rather than a de-jure world so lets not condemn the entire idea of government simply because this is so today.

Punishment by incarceration is not useful

We have a very confused idea that somehow incarceration is the way to correct behavior to prevent future crime or to isolate an offender to protect society.  This doesn't work because it is itself a crime against society because it creates a burden with no compensation to those paying the bills to execute incarceration.  It is an unlawful form of punishment on its face.
I have written in this blog about two types of punishment that actually solve the problem - restitution and death (or exile) of the offender.  Restitution attempts to "right" a wrong by compensation - and this must be compensation that satisfies the victim.  It must be sufficient that the victim is happy to repeat receiving the offense over and over along with the compensation.  This could include indentured servitude which is sometimes necessary to fulfill this requirement for some crimes.
A crime, by the way, is a contract broken by one party to the agreement.
Death or exile simply removes the offender from the society so it cannot cause more harm.  This is less desired than restitution but nevertheless is a legitimate solution for crimes that simply cannot be restored by compensation. It is also a very strong behavior modifier in itself.  This would be the point of violence by a lawful authority over another party without their consent that Larken so detests.  It is only lawful to do such violence when restitution cannot be made and it must be done lawfully at all points of the process.
The common law creates a process where a conflict is resolved by allowing a "fair fight" between the parties without the need for raw violence.  This has been completely lost in our litigious society of lawyers that use unlawful tricks usually based in mala-prohibita color of law.
Remember law is not law if it was not both created and administered lawfully - and that simply boils down to not violating any contract in the process.


I heartily agree with Larkin in that unlawful authority is of no use at all.  But unlike the anarchist, I see lawful authority as absolutely necessary to the survival of mankind and thus the necessity of some government (that is lawful) is absolute - no matter how difficult it may be to create and keep one that is limited sufficiently to allow the right to contract and private property to go unhampered.
It is our abandonment of the concept of a creator that is creating this trend towards anarchy.  Without the acceptance of a universal lawful authority, society will fragment into chaos and mankind will perish.