Institutions, Transformations, and Insurrections

When you believe that your opposition, is in fact your mortal enemy, is fundamentally evil, and will stop or destroy everything you want and believe to be right... Well, then you can justify absolutely anything to yourself, in obstructing, resisting, opposing, damaging, and trying to remove or destroy that opposition. 

We have been in an escalating cycle of this for decades... Since LBJ at least... Maybe even since FDR... and we are at the point now, where the left believe that literally anything is justifiable, in order to give themselves the power to do what they believe is right... Including literally beating people in the streets. 

This was the goal of the critical school, and Gramsci, and the comintern operations against the capitalist west for the last 100 years... and it has succeeded in creating a completely unhinged left, and the failure and destruction of societal norms and institutions... Most of which the left have been gaining increasing control over for decades, and they have had essentially complete control over many of them since the late 90s. 

This is the point at which the criticalists and Gramscians, believed that they could induce the total collapse of the western capitalist order, and that the people would inevitably flock to socialism... They literally believed it was a scientific and historical inevitability, that socialism was functionally the next stage in the "perfection" of man and society. 

Except that's not happening... leaving aside a relatively small minority of zealots and idiots... Because most peoples lives are actually pretty good, and getting better not worse... Though if you listen to Democrats and the media we live in hell manifest on earth... Unless they're in charge of course.

Instead what is happening, is the majority of people are disconnecting from the institutions around them, and just trying to live their lives, which leaves the institutions to the zealots and the deluded... Until those zealots impinge on the peoples lives in ways they find intolerable, at which point they fight back... witness Virginia... 

This is not a good or stable state to be in... But it's also not the tinderbox of near civil war many believe it to be. It could progress to that, but only if either things actually get to be as bad as the zealots say it is, or those now corrupted and failed institutions attempt to impinge too far on normal peoples lives in ways they will not tolerate, and will violently fight back.... At which point, there should be a big collective gasp for air, and realization that something is seriously wrong and has to change.

... That's the point where we either get a mass reform movement of our institutions, or we get a civil war... which itself is such a mass reform movement, resorting to violence because the people believe it is the only way to effect the necessary change. 

If you look at the policies of the major parties... 

One side wants to completely change everything about this countries culture, institutions, and economy, because they believe the way things are is so bad and wrong that it must be changed completely... and they will precipitate that literally apocalyptic event (look up what the word apocalypse actually means) rather quickly if they can... because their zealots believe they will win (they won't, but zealots never believe they won't win), and then get to rebuild the nation in their chosen image... 

...The other side... not so much...

The Logical and Epistemological Derivation and Progression of Rights

Here's a post I started writing about... two years ago I think? Maybe three? In response to a question about what rights were, and how we know they are rights etc... but I never finished it. The same question came up today, so I figured I'd finish the post. 

... It's still not QUITE finished... I need to do a bit more of an edit... but it's MOSTLY finished. 

By the by... if you think something is circular, or a tautology, you're reading it wrong. There are no tautologies here, there are only derivations from first principle, with reference to falsifiability, and non-contradiction; presented as logical and consequential proofs.

Meaning that all derivations FROM first principles in the progression can be derived back TO first principles, without contradiction or falsification... and that many but not all of them have, in order to illustrate this. 

As sentient beings, of sound mind, able to make our own choices and direct our own efforts; and to accept the requirements, obligations and consequences thereof; we have fundamental and inherent rights, which pre-exist and presuppose any society, state, collective, or other entity.

Rights exist because of self ownership, not because of society, or the state, or collective agreement or consent.We own ourselves, in the entire... rights, benefits, obligations and consequences.

We are not the property of others, or of society; and society (or the state, or any other collective or individual) is not the grantor of rights... though if legitimate, society, or the state, should be a guarantor of rights.

This is generally colloquially referred to as the propertarian principle of individual rights, or the principal of self ownership.

To my knowledge, it is the only logical derivation and progression of individual rights, as and from fundamental first principle, which does not require outside appeal to authority (i.e. faith, God, society, the state, the monarch etc... though conveniently, it also does not contradict most concepts of faith in God either)... though there may be others I am not familiar with.

This is a nearly universally recognized (if not necessarily universally accepted) principle, by those who actually study such principles (philosophy and philosophers), and the nature of principles, knowledge, and truth (epistemology... a field of philosophy which asks "how does one know anything at all, and within such knowledge, how does one know what is true and what is not).

It is generally accepted as the foundational first principle of the enlightenment... and critically it IS, clearly and explicity, the fundamental principle of the constitution of the United States... and of the nation defined by it.

Rights are not granted or provided by the constitution, or the state, or society... our rights are fundamental, inherent, and pre-existing... they are recognized, and protected by the constitution, by the state organized and formed by it, and... hopefully... by the society living with that state.

First, to get it out of the way right up front... lets talk about God for a minute:

1. Some believe there is no such thing as property, nor can there be... only stewardship
2. Some believe that we are Gods property

There can be conceptions of rights without property, including without self ownership, or even without individuals, as we think of them... but they are entirely different from conceptions of rights where there can be and is property... Generally granted by "tradition", or "honor" or "god" or "gods" etc... They are not derivable from any logical first principle, but instead require appeal to authority (even if that authority is "honor" or "tradition").

In most Christian and Jewish theological concepts which include people being God's property, this is morally and ethically indistinguishable from self ownership in the context of the propertarian principle; except internally, to your own moral judgement and conscience, of your stewardship of Gods property (as delegated to you, the individual...though certain Christians theorize and promulgate more explicitly collective stewardship as well).

In Islam, you are owned by God, and are in total submission to God... That is the literal meaning of Islam. You are owned by, and submit to the will of, God, in all things, at all times. Anything you or anyone else has, is Gods property, you only have temporary posession, use, and stewardship of it... including yourself. You have no rights, nor does anyone else... only privileges granted by God, as God wills it.

This piece is not about the epistemology of faith however, it is about the epistemology of rights.

So next, lets get the other common concepts of "rights"... which by the individual conception of rights are not truly rights at all... out of the way.

Some believe that there are superior beings, who have rights inherently (or granted by God, or society, or position etc..); and inferior beings, who do not, or whose rights are inferior to others (unless granted superior rights by those who posess them), and who can be the property of another, or can be subject to another. This is the fundamental principle of nobility or monarchy, and of certain types of oligarchy, and other explicitly hierarchical societies.

Some believe that people... or at least our bodies, and the fruits and products of them, and their efforts (wealth, profit, property etc...) are the property of "society" or some other collective entity or construct. If you believe that individuals are societies property... then you don't believe in rights at all... though you may call them rights, they are not: They are grants of privilege, immunity, entitlement, license, or franchise. They can be given, taken, and modified, as society decides. This is the fundamental principal of most collectivist societies.

It is also the fundamental presumption most people seem to have, in most societies around the world today... including, sadly, most people in America. They THINK they believe in rights, and in individuals... but they believe that rights are grants of society, or the state, or the constitution; and can be granted, modified, or revoked, as the needs or preferences of society require them to be.

They THINK they believe they are individuals, and own themselves... but they believe that society decides on rights... and if society decides, then you don't actually own yourself, society owns you.

What about right and wrong?

In either of these alternate conceptions; as the superior individuals, or society as a whole, are the arbiter of rights, then there can be no standard of right or wrong, except as determined by those superior individuals, or by common consent; and when society changes its mind, then what right, and what is wrong, also change.

There are no right and wrong... only allowed or not... Which, sadly, is what all too many believe.

If there ARE individual rights, beginning with property rights, then at least some things are inherently and objectively wrong... with or without society, even if society says they otherwise... Specifically those things which violate the rights of others, by force or fraud.

Oh and, if one knowingly does this wrong, by choice, then one willingly consents to their rights being abrogated as a consequence... We respect each others rights, so that others respect ours, and if they violate ours, we don't have to respect theirs... though we still should, and we shouldn't disregard their rights to any degree greater than required to compensate us for the violation of our rights, or to prevent further violation or abrogation of others rights.

THAT is the ACTUAL social contract by the way...

...Not some BS about society and altruism etc... etc... etc...

A contract, is valid consideration, offered for valid consideration in return; voluntarily accepted, with valid exchange and acceptance of said consideration, according to specified terms.

This equal offer of consideration of rights, fulfills all requirements of a contract; both as individuals, and collectively... as all so called "collective rights" are not... they either do not exist, or they are rights delegated to the collective by others.

... Remember... I said this was a full logical derivation and progression... 
Might makes right?

Three other important things to get out of the way...

1. Just because someone, or some society, or some state doesn't know about or recognize or accept such rights, doesn't mean they don't exist

2. Just because someone, or some society, or some state, is violating or abrogating such rights, does not mean they do not exist.

3. Just because someone, or some society, or some state, has the power, or has granted themselves the authority, to violate or abrogate such rights, does not mean they do not exist.

To "think" otherwise, is to make the same logical error, as thinking that because people violate the law, there is no law; the same logical error as thinking that because people do wrong, that there is no right or wrong.

This is the difference between licit, and legitimate authority and force. Licit, is that which is allowed by "authority"... be it society, the state, the monarch etc... Legitimate is that which respects both law, and rights... and the law itself must be licit and legitimate to be right.

Rights cannot be disposessed of, only respected, violated, or abrogated; whether by force, fraud, or willing consent.

... Willing limitation of rights, competition of rights, and intersection of rights in such contexts are MUCH more complicated questions...

Proof?

As I said above... The propertarian principal of individual rights, provides for a logical derivation and progression of rights, from first principle, without external appeal to authority.

So... here is the logical and epistemological progression and proof of individual rights; from, in reference to, and in the context of; the propertarian principle of individual rights, or the principle of self ownership.

First, our assumptions, and statement of principle...

Sentient individuals exist.

Property exists.

Rights exist.

Property may be held privately, by sentient individuals.

Sentient individuals may not legitimately be property of other individuals or entitites.

If we are sentient individuals, not owned by society, or any other superior individual or entity, then we must own ourselves.

Now, we derive our progression of rights...

If we own ourselves, then there must be rights, inherent to our nature as sentient individuals... These rights begin with, and proceed from, the right of self ownership; because without rights, there is no ownership... only possession.

If there is an inherent right of self ownership, and we are sentient beings, then we must have the right to freedom of conscience.

If we own ourselves, and have freedom of conscience, then we cannot be dispossessed of our rights even by willing consent; as self ownership and freedom of conscience cannot be dispossessed of without negating sentience and individuality.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience and cannot be disposessed of our rights, then our rights can only be abrogated or violated by force, fraud, or willing consent.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, cannot be disposessed of our rights, and our rights can only be abrogated or violated by force, fraud, or willing consent; then all sentient individuals have the same rights, and no individual can have any rights that are superior or inferior to the rights of any other individual.

If all sentient individuals have the same rights, which cannot be superior or inferior to any other, then no sentient individual can be superior or inferior to another.

If no sentient individual can be superior or inferior to any other, then no individual can own any other or be owned by any other.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, and cannot be dispossessed of our rights, then we must have the right of private property, which consists of the rights of posession, determination, use, exclusion, disposal, and benefit of such property (including our selves in the entire).

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, and have the right of private property, then we must have the right of defense of self.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, and have the right of private property, then we must have the right of self determination.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, have the right to private property, and the right to self determination, then we must have the right of association.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, have the right to private property, the right to self determination, and the right to free association, then we must have the right to form contract.

If we own ourselves, have freedom of conscience, have the right to private property, and the right to self determination, the right of association, and the right to form contract; we must also have the right to form voluntary collectives of individuals and to delegate certain rights and powers to them.

If we can form a voluntary collective of individuals, all individuals have the same rights which cannot be disposessed, no individuals can be superior or inferior to any other, and no individual can own or be owned by any other...

 ....then no collective of individuals can be a separate entity unto itself with rights separate from the rights of the individuals making up the collective, nor can any collective of individuals be superior or inferior to any individual, nor possess or exercise rights not posessed by all individuals, or which are superior to those of any individual.

... Thus, we are able to have societies, and states, which respect and protect individual rights, and which do not violate or abrogate them; without requiring collective rights, or collective ownership.

That's the epistemological progression from the propertarian principle, through to the existence of societies and states, with the exclusion of collective rights, and collective ownership... It is a complete chain of reasoning, derivable from and to first principles... progression and regression.

All things which are ACTUALLY rights, as opposed to grants, franchises, etc... can and must be logically and epistemologically justified within this progression, or from this progression. All things which cannot be logically and epistemologically justified within or from this progression... as dervied from and in the context of the propertarian principle... are not, and can not be, rights. They are something else, that are not rights.

Taxation CAN be ethical and legitimate... I just wish it actually were...

"ALL TAXATION IS THEFT!!!"

"TAXES ARE THE PRICE WE MUST PAY FOR CIVILIZATION!!!"

Hmmm... would it surprise you to learn that neither of those things are true... but that both are based on valid, and nonconflicting, principles?

... Yes, valid and non conflicting. Yes, even for libertarians and other individualists, not just statist and collectivists...

Being a libertarian... or even broader, being one who recognizes and accepts the notion of fundamental and inherent individual rights, regardless of ones political philosophy surrounding them... means that you must recognize that all people have equal rights, AND equal responsibilities.

It means you must recognize that the exercise of rights (even the right to attempt to continue living) has consequences, which we must own in the entire, as we own ourselves in the entire.

This includes recognizing and understanding that our actions, including those that are within and pursuant to our rights, DO impact others, including in ways which MAY create obligation.

Social debt is a real, valid, and legitimate concept; even... in fact especially...in a system of individual rights. To claim otherwise is to twist the notion of individual rights, and self ownership, to exclude certain cases of responsibilities and consequences... and to ignore basic economics for that matter.

Social debt is incurred by all who gain direct benefit or substantive indirect benefit, from a social good, or from the use of property held in common, even without their explicit consent; unless that social good is forced on them, both against their will, and without direct necessity.

For example, babies can't consent to incurring debt for police, courts, and national defense, however they both gain benefit from these social goods, and such costs are necessary to the functioning of society as it exists today (and it can be argued, some "things" which serve these unctions will always be necessary, as anarchy among a large population, always and inevitably results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak).

A man who is left unconscious, in the cold or heat, without food, water, and shelter, will die. If he is then given food, shelter, water, and medical care, necessary to sustain his life, he incurs debt for these goods, even though he did not consent to it. If he does not wish to accept such debt, then he must ensure that should he become unable to consent or refuse, that he be allowed to die rather than incurring such debt.

Of course... If "society", or the state, do not allow him to make this decision, to die rather than incur such debt... if we force him to accept such treatment against his will... then no debt is incurred. Otherwise, any debt whatsoever could be justified, by claiming it was necessary. This would abrogate the ownership of oneself, and arrogate such ownership to the state, or to "society" (of course, many people already believe that we are owned by "society", so this concept is not a problem for them).

Thus, yes, simply being born into, and living in, a nation or a "society", incurs obligation, even without your explicit consent. If you do not wish to incur such obligation, then do not live in that country or society. If you are unable to leave because of your circumstances, unless you are being explicitly forced to remain against your will, and not as a consequence of your own actions and choices (no matter how poor or limited your options), this does not free you of your obligations.

There must be some system for satisfying such obligations. Taxation, as a broad concept, is one such system (or set of systems, as there are many different types and means of taxation) for doing so, though there are others.

THIS, is how involuntary taxation CAN BE ethical, and legitimate, in a system of individual rights.

HOWEVER... in order to be ethical and legitimate, such obligations must be strictly limited.

Taxation is only ethical, and legitimate, if such burdens are: minimized, provide direct or substantive indirect benefit, and are either necessary, or voluntary. And no, majority decision is not "voluntary" automatically, unless one has consented to be governed by such decisions.

We implicitly consent to some degree of governance by accepting or maintaining citizenship, or residency, in this country... However, we also do so under the conditions of the constitution, AND those of our preexisting fundamental and inherent rights, which the constitution recognizes and protect.

Actions of the government can only be legitimate.... and can only legitimately create obligation... if they align with such principles; among which are that any impingement on one's rights (including property rights, which includes your wealth, cash, assets etc...) even as allowed by the constitution, must still be minimal, must effectively serve a compelling interest, and must be applied equally under the law.

Now... I don't know about anyone else... But I don't feel that our current regime of taxation... and much of what those taxes are used for... are aligned with either the constitution, or our individual rights, nor do they impose the minimum necessary burden, nor do they effectively serve a compelling interest, and they are most certainly not applied equally under the law.

Moving Towards Post Scarcity

If you want a world where no-one is poor, or hungry, or suffers... It's impossible.

However, a world where poverty and hunger are rare is entirely possible. In fact, we could do it right now, today.

... Though not through the means that most of those who loudly claim it as their goal, would think... or approve of.

The way to get there is by moving towards a post scarcity economy. Not to redistribute material wealth, but to make everyone so materially wealthy, that there would be no point.

And that IS possible.

We already live in a world where we can produce enough food, cheaply enough, for no-one to ever be hungry again.

... but most of it is wasted (seriously, most... between 60% and 80% of all food grown in advanced economies is wasted), because of government corruption, stupidity, or outright tyranny (most famines are not the result of nature, but of government).

That wasted food isn't given away for free, because high energy costs make transportation too expensive, and because government makes laws and regulations against doing so,mor that make doing so too risky and expensive.

What about other goods?

The three biggest components of the cost of most material goods, are labor, energy, and legal and regulatory costs (including taxes).

Material costs for most goods are a small fraction in comparison, rarely exceeding 20% of the total cost of an item, and often comprising less than 5%.

...And even then, much of the costs of the raw materials are themselves, labor, energy, and legal and regulatory costs (including taxes).

It's not greedy evil profit that makes and keeps things expensive... It's the cost of energy, the cost of labor, and the costs imposed by government and the legal system.

Right now, today, we could dramatically reduce the wasteful overheads imposed by government and the legal system, without hurting safety a single bit.

We could dramatically reduce taxes, and regulations, keeping only those that demonstrably improve safety to a reasonable degree for the costs they impose.

We could make industries far more competitive, by reducing barriers to entry created by governments.

We could dramatically increase employment at the same time, and wages, as businesses competed for workers, who had more money to pay those businesses.

We know all of these things work, because they always have, and always do. When we get out of the way.

But the single biggest thing we could do, to dramatically increase the material wealth of the world, and to dramatically improve the human condition...

Cheap energy.

If we could deliver energy so cheap that we didn't have to bother metering it, then we could achieve a near post scarcity economy, almost immediately.

With enough energy, cheap enough, we can achieve matter synthesis for many substances relatively easily.

With enough energy, cheap enough, aluminum, copper, gold, silver, silicon, and many other currently expensive materials, become dirt cheap.

With enough energy, cheap enough, plastics and anything derived from petrochemicals or other hyrdocarbons, become so cheap as to be effectively zero cost.

With enough energy, cheap enough, we have effectively unlimited clean fresh water, and can easily clean the air.

With enough energy, cheap enough, we can synthesize whatever fuels we want... Or mostly not bother, because the only thing we'd need chemical fuels for anymore was highly efficient long distance bulk cargo transportation, and air travel.

If you're really worried about carbon output from the human race... How about eliminating more than 80% of it, permanently?

With enough energy, cheap enough, we don't have to worry about efficiency of transport and storage technologies... though we will still develop them so that we can replace chemical fuels in air travel and bulk cargo transport, and to improve range and grid independence.

With enough energy, cheap enough, the cost of manufactured goods falls anywhere from 20% to more than 80%... and employment booms, and economies boom, and everyone gets much wealthier... rich and poor alike.

With enough energy, cheap enough, about 90% of the world's troublespots, stop being troublespots, and most of them we wouldn't have to care about.

If you want to "end war" it's impossible, but if you want to make it much rarer, smaller scale, and less destructive... cheap energy is the best way to do that.

Guess what?

We could do most of this, in less than 20 years, simply by deploying a widely distributed localized grid, of thorium reactors (technically, encapsulated pebble bed, low temperature and pressure gas coolant, thorium reactors... and/or natural convection, low pressure thorium salt reactors).

They have functionally negligible waste, their fuel cost per gigawatt is negligible, and they are many times safer than current coal and natural gas power. They are incredibly cheap to build and operate, they can't be weaponized, they can't have a meltdown or other destructive catastrophic failure... if you don't believe me, don't believe the propaganda, go an do the research yourself.

If we decided to get out of the way and get behind this entirely, we would have power at a cost of pennies per megawatt hour... a tiny fraction of a percent of the cost today (in the U.S. average is something like $0.13 kwh right now with taxes and fees adding about 20% on top of that. Some states run several times that, and much of Europe several times that again).

This isn't some pie in the sky dream, it doesn't require 50 years of engineering work or basic science. There are no breakthroughs required... Unlike EVERY OTHER FORM OF POWER that could possibly be an alternative to today's power infrastructure. Solar, wind, geothermal, none of them could ever be more than a fraction of our needs at ridiculously high cost. Fusion requires both basic science breakthroughs and much more engineering work to be viable (if it ever is). It's all decades away at best, if ever.

We could do this today.

Not 50 years from now... TODAY.

The 20 years isn't for more development, it's just how long it would take to complete the world wide economic transition to a cheap energy economy and infrastructure.

So, if what you really want, is to make a world where no-one goes hungry, and no-one is homeless... Then work for cheap and safe energy, and a huge reduction in government induced overhead. And it will happen.

Otherwise, what you really want, is a world where everyone is poorer, but where "evil profit" is eliminated, and "the rich" are punished, and everyone is economically "equal"; where the "right people are in charge", and will arrange the world the way you think is right, and punish the people you think are wrong.

Because that's all you're ever going to get, with more expensive energy, higher taxes, more government, and more redistribution.

Misunderstanding Law, Government, and Society

Most people... At least most people in modern western democracies... Seem to have a fundamental and unconscious assumption about the nature of law and government, that goes something like this:

Law and government, are or should be, the expression of the will of the majority, for the purpose of making collective decisions, taking collective actions, fixing problems and righting wrongs.

If I gave that definition to most people as what government "should" be, or even what it is, I'd guess they would agree.

 But that's not what law and government are at all. In fact, that notion of the nature of law and government, is not only wrong, it is extremely harmful.

What are law and government?

Government, is the instrument of collective delegation of the legitimate initiation and use of force against others. 

Law, is the body of rules by which that force is administered and applied. 

The only legitimate purpose for which, is to secure and protect the rights of individuals governed by them.

So, what's the other thing, and why is this a problem?

 The other definition, is more properly that of society (as distinct from culture).

Government is NOT Society, and Society, is NOT Government

This conflation of government, and society, is a very serious social and political problem because those who hold it... and I firmly believe it's a large majority... believe that law and government, should be used for "doing what's good, and stopping what's bad".

They naturally wish to see government do what they think is right, or best, and stop that which they think is wrong, harmful, or wasteful... And not just in areas where force should be applied.

They conflate "legal" with "good" and "illegal" with "bad", and try to make laws against things which they think are bad, or mandating things which they think are good.

 They often even conflate "legal" or "attempting to make legal" with "approving and supporting", and "dissapproving and opposing" with "illegal" or "attempting to make illegal".

This is incredibly harmful

We have allowed... even encouraged people... to deeply hold the fundamental notion, that they get to vote on other peoples opinions, choices, and behavior; and if their "side" wins the vote, that it is legitimate to make those things legal or illegal.

 It also means that these people automatically and reflexively try to solve personal, moral, social, or societal problems, with government and law, when it is entirely inappropriate, even harmful, to attempt to do so.

Most of those problems cannot be solved by the use of force;, or at best can only be solved inefficiently, ineffectively, and while violating the rights of others.

 In encouraging this misapprehension, we have in fact made the personal, the political, and the political, the personal.


How do we stop the harm?

We must correct this critical error in peoples fundamental apprehension of law and government. 

People need to understand, at the most fundamental level, that government is force, and that law is how that force is directed and administered. No more, no less.

If we don't correct this misapprehension, then we will continue to simply seesaw back and forth between majoritarian tyrannies, as social changes dictate.

Rights will continue to be violated and abrogated as the opinions of society fluctuate.

The favored, will continue to be privileged over the disfavored at the expense of the disfavored's rights, until the pendulum swings again and the roles are reversed.

Yes, I realize, that is largely how it has always been... But never has law and government had such a depth and breath, had so great a reach into our personal lives, as it does today, and this unfortunately shows no sign of receding.

The absurdity of this reach... and overreach... is finally becoming apparent to many people, on all ideological "sides"; be it the "war on drugs", the "war on terror", privacy and surveillance, or gay marriage and wedding cakes.

So, we have to take action, now 

Use this growing awareness of the overreach, to help people understand.

We have to show people these aren't just outlying excesses. That they result from the way we think of, look at, and attempt to use, government.

We have to get people to understand, that if they can say "there ought to be a law", and then get a law made banning something that they don't like; then their worst enemy, can get a law made banning something they love.

We have to return to the notion that fundamental rights matter, and that the only legitimate purpose of law, and government, is to protect those fundamental rights.

Everything else?

That's up to individuals, and to society as a whole, NOT GOVERNMENT.

Voluntary collective action. If it's really what people want, then they'll work for it, without the threat of force. If it's not really what they want, then we shouldn't be forcing people to do it.

To everyone predicting "there will be riots in the streets" for ANY reason...

To everyone who predicts "riots in the streets" for whatever reason....

There are three reasons we haven't seen mass riots of economically lower class minority youth (pretty much the only Americans who riot) in years, and likely will not any time soon:

1. Poor youth have air conditioning now
2. Poor youth have text messaging now
3. Poor youth have playstation and xbox now

They're too lazy, comfortable, and entertained by other things, to bother with rioting... Rioting is hard, and hot, and not all that fun... it's too much work.

Note... I say this not because I think minorities are lazy... but because YOUTH, economically lower class or otherwise, minority or otherwise; are, for the most part, lazy and complacent; and busy doing other things.

Social commentary, disguised as a video game review

The NEW Rules of Dating

Today both Kim and the Mrs expounded upon the issues that come up in the dating world today, from men who don't understand that no means "no" and women who allow this kind of behavior to continue.

So in response to Kim's list of rules for men to follow, I will list my own set of rules for BOTH sexes to follow. These rules are gleaned from years of experience in dating and the continual bitching of my single friends.

1. Talk about where you stand.
Everyone has different beliefs regarding what is appropriate. If on the first date you decide you want to continue, these things need to be discussed before things progress past casual, non-commital dating.

• What you want out of a relationship right now. This includes sex, companionship, marriage prospects, everything. If you want something major, and the other person just wants a fuck buddy, you need to work that out.
• Sex: is it a possibility? Will it be a possibility sometime down the road? If it is, you need to discuss levels of protection, expectations of fidelity, etc.
  
• Religious beliefs, or lack thereof: this is really important if you have an eye towards the long-term. If you're only looking for "the One" this is of vital importance.
• Where you want to go in life: once again, if you're looking at the long term you need to know the basics.
• Politics: I know that politics are a traditionally taboo subject, but the fact is, these days the political divide is so acrimonious, that you don't want to invest yourself into a potential relationship with someone whose politics make your skin crawl.
  
• Passions: What are the passions in your life, and can your prospective partner stand them; and stand the time you give to them.
  
• Splitting of the check (or not). In one relationship I had we agreed to a simple system since we both made the same amount of money: whoever proposed the date, paid for it. This way we could choose things we could afford, and nobody had any nasty surprises when the check arrived.

As a sidenote, all of these things help you get to know the other person, so should come up anyway somewhere along the line. If you can't come to an understanding or a basic knowledge of what the other person wants, assume nothing until they TELL you what they want. On the flip side, make sure the other person knows where you stand on things that affect them.

2. Comfort level wins
If one of you is ready for sex, or ready for physical contact, and the other is NOT, the wishes of the person who is NOT ready must be respected. If you can't handle waiting, or if the other person can't and tries to pressure you, it's OVER. Any name-calling, guilting, or other juvenile behavior on their part just means you leave faster.

3. On protection: the most paranoid person gets to decide
If sex becomes a possibility, protection must be discussed. If one person is happy with just birth control, and the other wants birth control and a barrier, the latter person's wishes stand. Once again, if you can't handle that or the other person can't handle that, it's game over. Ditto on the juvenile behavior.

4. There are no expectations of physical contact or sex; ask permission
Just because you paid for dinner, or you know that your prospect "put out" for someone else doesn't mean that you get to expect ANYTHING. If you want to kiss on the first date, ask. If you want sex, ask. Don't assume that you're entitled to anything.

5. Just because you've gone somewhere before, doesn't mean you have to again
But do be considerate and let the other person know that although you've kissed/petted/had sex you aren't comfortable with it now. If they can't respect that, kick them to the curb.

6. Keep your perspective
Infatuation can be fun, but it can also be all-consuming. Remember that no matter how good a new relationship feels you have friends and family who need your attention as well. If your relationship ends, you will need to have other people in your life. If your prospect has a problem with you spending reasonable amounts of time with friends and family, RUN.

7. If your prospect wants you to meet their friends or family, indulge them.
You can learn a lot about a person from their friends and family. Conversely, once your prospect's friends and family meet you and you get their approval, the likelihood of your relationship lasting increases tenfold. If they don't like you, don't expect the relationship to last.

(Note: if upon meeting your new girlfriend's friends you find that the males tend to be protective of her AND well-armed, this is your warning that any ungentlemanly behavior will not be tolerated. Behave accordingly)

8. The ex is the ex for a reason
If you are meeting the ex, chances are they managed to stay friends. This is most likely because:

• They were friends to begin with
• They broke up in an amiable manner
• They followed the aforementioned rules and therefore can still stand each other as human beings

Do not assume that because the ex is around, he "wants her back" or "they're still seeing each other". If you think such things your relationship will go downhill fast. Instead, think of it as reassurance that your prospect is a nice, considerate person who, when things don't work out, handles it like an adult.

9. If you've decided to break up, there is only one way to do it
Face to face. No phone calls, no standing them up, no emails, and NO HAVING THE POLICE DO IT FOR YOU. And do it as soon as you decide you need to so you don't string them along. Arrange to do the deed face to face, and hold your ground. If they're being an ass on an issue, leave them right there.

There are only three exceptions to the face-to-face rule: long-distance dating, people you're breaking up with because you can't ever reach them or because they have a tendency to stand you up, and those you have determined to be dangerous. But still, for god's sake, find some way to tell them.

10. There is only one way to handle being dumped
Accept it, and move on. Stay friends if you want to, or don't. Either way, it's obviously not going to work out and you should get on with your life.

Under no circumstances should you:

• Beg, plead, guilt, strip, or resort to any other kind of demeaning behavior.
• If there is another person involved, make reference to "fighting" for them, or anything resembling "let the best man win". That's incredibly insulting to both you and them.
• Stalk. This is especially important if the friends were the well-armed men described above.

If both parties can follow these rules (summed up nicely as ACT LIKE ADULTS) dating doesn't have to be a scary, landmine ridden undertaking filled with misunderstandings and misuse of police resources. If you can't find another adult to date, keep looking. There are more of us out there than you think.

Mel

More on "Double Standard and Magic Numbers"

There have been a couple of comments on the original post, both here and on the NoR that I wantes to talk about.

"I think there is and SHOULD be a double-standard. Girls are much more vulnerable sexually. As for age of consent, for girls (sans marriage) I’d suggest 25 Removing the parents ability to charge statutory rape would be a HUGE mistake."

...

"So, if you would have fathered a child @ 13, what is your responsibility? Who would have paid the child support? You can't assume an abortion.

Is it reasonable to saddle someone who cannot legally work and cannot contract with the financial responsibility of raising a child? Or are the grandparents saddled with that financial burden?

I'm glad that you personally didn't get into this situation. That's very lucky and good for you. It's a poor guide for policy."
...

"It’s only in western society that sex has become set as being something which is age restricted (some others in Asia are starting to follow suit) and only relatively recently.

The best (physically) age range for a woman to bear children is between roughly age 15 and 30, for men that’s I think a few years later.

So physiologically there’s nothing wrong with it at all, and it’s only our societies which have somehow decided that someone isn’t able to decide for themselves until they’re 18 (or 21 in the US) (and getting ever older) that determine that it’s “wrong”.
Instead we use all kinds of medical techniques to ensure that people who are well over the age where they can normally get children do indeed get pregnant and have somewhat healthy offspring (I think it was this year that a 70+ year old woman delivered a baby).

What I have a problem with in this instance is not the fact that the boy was 14, or the woman 25, but the fact that the woman was in a position of trust and power over the boy and may have abused that trust and power."

...

Here's the thing... I have no problem with the age difference issue, so long as there is absolutely no co-ercion or a power relationship.

The problem I have with the situation, and I mentioned it but only for a second in my original post; is entirely the abuse of authority issue. I didn’t address that because I think the main question here is about the age difference issue, but let me clarify:

Coercion is NEVER acceptable, whether it is physical or because of a power relationship. Someone placed in a non-sexual power relationship over someone else should NEVER have sexual relations with that person.

You dont have sex with your employees or your employer, and you dont have sex with people in your chain of command; unless one of those factors is going to change immediately.

Now as to the “25 for girls”... when do we stop? Why do we expect parental authority, or parental responsiblity, or individual irresponsibility to extend for so long? Why do we ALLOW IT?

I believe that everyone is, and should be, responsible for themselves, as soon as they are capable of being so. I was on my own at 16, living in my own apartment, paying my own bills, and making my own decisions. The only reason why at least 50% and more like 80% of all 16 year olds “can’t” do the same thing, is because we don’t make them.

“But what about the innocence of childhood? Why can’t we just let kids be kids?”

Do you really think that a 14 year old is a kid anymore? We don’t let them be Kids, we turn them into confused adults with adult bodies and concerns and issues, but no adult responsibilities or accountabilities… and we expect them to end up healthy and well adjusted afterwards?

We have developed into a society that keeps everyone morally and practically children for as long as possible (well into their 30’s if one works the system right); and yet makes them sexually adults as EARLY as possible.

...and it’s entirely arbitrary and capricious.

Doesnt anyone else find this not only absurd, but in fact harmful and disgusting?

Double Standards, and Magic Numbers

A friend of mine on the NoR asks the question:

"There is a very pretty young teacher who has been brought up on rape charges for having sex with a 14 year old male student.

We’ve kidded about this at home saying something like, “there is only one word to describe the boy in this case.... LUCKY.”

Some have argued (not necessary here) that if we don’t prosecute the woman in this story that we’re giving the appearance of a double-standard, ie, one set of rules that pertains to young men and sex with an adult female and one for girls with an adult male.

What’s your take?"

Actually I think this is a very important question, that touches on some aspects of our society that are in conflict: Liberty, Responsibility, and Protection

Remember, when our average lifespan was 40, people were frequently married off by 13 or 14. Even as recently as the 1930s it was common to be married by 16. It was only with the era of victorian morality, followed soon after by the rise of compulsory schooling ending at 18, that teenagers became viewed as unable to marry or to be sexually active.

I have had a student teacher physical relationship. I was 16 she was a 23 year old student music teacher; and I was in no way used, abused, taken advantage of or pressured. It was a very satisfying relationship both physically and emotionally, on both our parts; and I am very glad it happened.

That said, I have known 16 year olds who did not have the emotional maturity for such an experience; and clearly Susan Smith’s chosen victim did not for example. Hell, I've known 30 year olds who aren't mature enough for sex.

Additionally there is the matter of abuse of trust of the parents, and the potential for coercion in a power relationship.

Most folks in this country would probably agree that a 14, or at least a 16 year old boy who was in this situation was indeed lucky; but most of those same folks would want to string up a male teacher who had the same experiences with a 16 year old girl... and CERTAINLY a 14 year old.

Why is that?

Why is there a double standard there, and why is 16, or 18, or any other age OK?

I have a real issue with what Fran Poretto calls “Magic Numbers” in our society. At 18 (or 16, or 14) it is magically OK to have sex, while at 17 and 364 days it isnt? At 18 it is ok to sign a contract, but at 17.99 it isnt? At 21 it is OK to drink, but at 20.99 it isn’t?

I became sexually active at 13, and I don’t regret it. I was ready to do so, and I appreciated it, and the risks and rewards of it. I don’t regret becoming sexually active so early at all, but I do regret my sexual morality during the follwing five years, which was somewhat indescriminate. The thing is, I needed to make those mistakes on my own; and I'm glad I made them when I was young.

I also know folks who had a similar age experience, who believe it severely damaged them emotionally, and in their sexual/mental health and approach to relationships.

Every person is different. To my mind, it’s not something we can just say hard and fast “this is ok, and this isn’t”.

Of course the problem then becomes subjectivity of standards, and the unequal application of law. The law can be neither arbitrary nor capricious; and still be fair and constitutional.

So here’s what I think from a real world standpoint:

1. Under 13 is always child abuse no matter what. You have to draw a bottom line and this is where I put mine.

2. 13-15 should be evaluated on a case by case basis; but complaints of statutory rape or abuse must either arise from a judgement that the minor wasn’t competent to make the decision to have sex, or from a direct complaint by the minor themselves. Parents should not be able to make claims of statutory rape or abuse without the co-operation of the minor. I believe this should be the case even though there may be the suspicion of co-ercion. Now if there is clear proof of co-ercion that is another matter entirely, and is a case for rape, not statutory rape.

3. 16 and over should never be considered statutory rape or abuse unless the minor has been judged incompetent to make the decision to have sex.

Yes I realize that leaves many who are not ready for those decisions unprotected by the law; but I do not believe it is the laws job to protect everyone from everything. At 16 you should be able to make most of your own decisions; even if they are stupid ones.

Authoritarian, Libertarian, Anarchist

Over at Eric Raymonds place, there is a discussion going on in comments about how pro-war libertarians and muscular minarchists (like Eric, and myself) are "objectively right wing".

Of course this idea is being promulgated by self identified marxists, who are also writing things like the following:

"Soviet communism (which isn’t Marxism) is a different beast. It is not an opposition to the left-brained self-talking brutality of the West but rather just a different version of it; in fact, by narratising the development of these two forms as a “struggle” or “war” in which one must emerge victorious and set the standard for the world, as was done in the Cold War between U.S. capitalism and Soviet communism, you stand a good chance of extending the life of either or both forms of barbarism. Think “1984″ and you will get the picture.


Nazism – fast burn – deadly
Soviet communism – medium burn – deadlier
Murkan capitalist hegemony – slow burn – deadliest?


Or if you prefer, think of the difference between a virus such as Ebola which quickly kills its victim and one such as HIV which works slowly, leaving its host just as dead but giving it enough time to spread surreptitiously and infect many more hosts, insuring its longevity. And then consider how the Murkan model has been successfully propagated throughout the rest of the world – Europe, Japan, India, China, and now the Middle East. If capitalistic squandering of natural resources continues apace, then we’re looking down the barrel of a bodycount in the BILLIONS:


http://www.dieoff.org


If anything the Marxists were optimists. They recognised the gross injustices of capitalism but expected the underclasses to be more aware, and more capable of revolution, than they turned out to be, and underestimated the effectiveness of the contrivers of American governance.


Comment by Jeff Read — Thursday, September 8 2005 @ 5:01 pm"

It will never cease to amaze me how so many intelligent people can be so utterly stupid.

There are only three political philosophies:

1. The collective has rights, and those rights are superior to the rights of the individual

2. The individual has rights, but also responsibilities to the members of the collective. The collective has no rights, and those responsibilites owed to it's members are at best equal to the rights of the individual.

3. The individual has all rights which are superior, and no responsiblities

Fundamentally, that's all there is to it. I personally believe that if YOU believe in 1, or 3, no matter how smart you are, you're an idiot.

Anarchy and collectivism (3 and 1 respectively) are fundamnetaly wrong. Collectivism requires the subjugation of human freedom to the will of the collective in all things. I believe that this is objectively evil. Anarchy inevitably results in the total subjugation of the weak by the strong, which is also objectively evil.

If you believe in a "balance" between 1 and 2, you're wrong as well, because there is no balance between the two. Collectives do not have rights. Individuals have rights, and responsiblities are owed by individuals to the members of a collective. There are no collective rights.

If you believe in a balance between 2 and 3 you're wrong, there is no balance point. Either you owe responsibilities to the members of the collective, or you don't.

And no, I'm not going to softpedal this and say "this is my opinion". I believe that what I have said is objectively true, and not subject to opinion. My first principle is that the unwilling subjugation of human liberty is always objectively evil; unless it is to prevent an individual from transgressing upon the fundamental liberties of others.

I cannot comprehend how any other first principle could be correct.

If you are arguing from a different first principle, stop right now, because no useful discussion can occur between individuals who share different first principles on a subject; except as relates to those first principles themselves.

Now, try and convince me my first principle is wrong.