TheVeryFew

Quietly, I've been preparing for Christmas. What separates Christmas from other Christian "holy days" begins with the use of it as a way to focus on others. The natural consequence of observing the birth of a living savior is to recognize the humanity and divinity of man. It ends with good news of great joy.

As long as I am at peace there is peace in the world, and I am at peace. "Peace on earth, good will to men." Who can object to the hope?

Christmas cannot be discussed without reference to a divine. Even looking back to the pagan holidays that preceded the Christian celebration, the winter solstice has always been a time to "look up," and wait on spiritual power. Nobody knows the day of our Savior's birth, so the arbitrary use of December 25th in Western tradition suits everybody just fine. The interesting choice, however, comes a few days after the winter solstice. That seems entirely appropriate to me, too. Jesus did not arrive on the darkest night in the early tradition, but a few days later. The way was prepared.

This is not a religious post, although reference to spiritual power cannot be avoided. We are a "post-Christian" society, and only the dross remains of our spiritual roots. You can easily see that in our society and government. Personal interests have become our religion, and religion has become, at best, a second-class interest. We trample people and wish to damn them from our way.

Here is what really clinches the deal: in all our transformations, it is the very essence of the Christmas holiday -- in any and all of its forms -- that deprives us of our liberty and sound government. We have lost our awe, our sense of community and wonder, and our shared hopes. In fact, we have lost fellowship with one another, and we have lost interest in society. We each want what we want, and we each want it now. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, "Ask not for a Christmas gift; ask instead, what good thing can I give back to my community and nation."

Have you been naughty or nice?

We have looked at foundations of law, consent of the governed, and
tyranny, but so far law itself still remains elusive and evasive. To
say that laws are made to suppress evil and encourage good, built on
the will of the governed, and judged according to motive still leaves
the question open, "What is law?" The answer remains even more elusive if we ask the more important question, "What is good law?"

Let's start with law itself, and offer the simplest definition: Law is the will of the sovereign. Although that answer begs too many questions, it provides a starting point. It means that law is determined by power.

The conscience, will, goodness, and authority rest on the shoulders of the biggest kid on the playground, whether he is kind or cruel, thoughtful or inconsiderate; or it falls on the biggest group of  kids on the playground if they work together to maintain a minimum of cooperation. It stays that way until and unless the other kids gang up and overthrow the big kid or the group, or until the big kid goes home, or a bigger kid comes along.

Law is enforceable will. Ouch. What can we do about that? (I wrote a lot more, but again lost it all when the WYSIWYG editor became myopic... I will continue later.)

In rare cases you might gain cooperative audiences, but the chances are very, very slim unless you have force with you. With the bikers you might want a half dozen armed men. At work, it might take a union behind you. With the speeding cop, you might need a sergeant or an internal affairs officer with you. They have a different society (state) to protect them from the greater society's laws. In the first case, they have an outlaw society, in the second, the society of financial leverage, and in the third, the corruption of legal authority. The results are likely to be in kind. In other words, the biker group may threaten you with bodily injury, your employer may threaten you with dismissal and the withdrawal of your livelihood, and the cop may threaten you with a ticket or arrest.

The will of the governed is always tenuous, at best. Tyranny or passive acquiescence are the only alternatives to the will of the governed. The more laws that exist, and the more unpopular they are, the greater the force necessary to assure compliance. In this case, compliance means will. If the governing body wants you to comply, it must generate the force to exact the will from the majority of the governed. This is the definition of tyranny, and this is why the United States government now acts as a tyrannical authority.

There is still much more to come...

We have never looked at law in a formal way. What should our laws be?

In a formal view, laws should suppress and punish evil, and protect and encourage society as a whole. That leaves too many loopholes, however. If, for instance, the law requires you to give me money because you earn more than me, and I am a member of society, then society improves. Right?

Hand it over.

Before we can discuss the law, it might be helpful to see what law is. Law can be defined as the direct or indirect, explicit or implied, real or imagined will of the society as expressed by the state. (To answer one potential question up front, "state" is the organization of that society, however accomplished. There is no room for that question here, except to say that without "state" there is no law... or worse, numerous individuals' laws. To answer another, the "imagined will" is just what it sounds like, and causes more trouble than a rattle snake in a mouse hole.)

Who does the law apply to, and how does it apply? That is a fascinating question.

I wrote an extended article on Conscience and Others over the weekend, but lost it when I hit some wrong buttons and that was that. The upshot of the article was that we do influence, and change, the conscience of others through activity and thoughts that the public sees and hears.

But mostly sees.

When our town in Upstate NY was flooded in 2006, one man and a small volunteer group under his direction considered the situation a call to action. Through a local church, they set up a disaster relief program that served 80,000 meals, found hundreds of volunteers to clean up and rebuild homes, provided generators to run refrigeration and power tools, and accepted donations of furniture, clothing, housewares, and every other type of support you can imagine for our homeless families to choose from.

Many people simply found a way to help through this impromptu arrangement. Their conscience already told them to do something to help others. Many people were motivated to find their conscience stimulated and encouraged, or act in a way that made them part of the living community. It worked on our town, as it works in other places when disaster strikes. A wide range of feelings from genuine compassion to personal shame encouraged people to take part and put our community back together again.

Although this may be impossible for me without reference to a metaphysical being, we can all agree that there is something beyond the known physical understanding of the universe that binds us in the sense of right and wrong, noble and evil, good and bad, and fondness and dislike. We will call this metaphysical commonality by many names -- spirit, karma, moral sympathies, conscience, human ethology, or a sixth sense -- and depend on it in our interactions with others, how we raise our children, and in our preparations for sleep.

I will use the popular and value neutral term, "conscience." In any society we will like some people and dislike others for a limitless number of reasons, but most of us consider those who would kill or persecute others because of a disliking, "wrong," "bad," or "evil." To differing degrees we distrust aspects or elements of our society. Most of us lock our doors at night or while we are away because we either distrust that part of society or do not wish to advertise our vulnerability to it.

In earlier articles, the term "conscience" has met with misunderstanding. These are the qualities of the term. The statement, "Improving our societal conscience is the necessary change that will create the most favorable conditions for ourselves and our society," means exactly that. The reverse has proven the opposite -- abandoning or dismissing conscience leads to deterioration of society.

Some people maintain that we cannot change the moral character of another human being. For now, let's move forward and accept that as if it was true.

Believing that premise, we only have one conscience we can train or abide by, and only one conscientious action that can bear against the evils of society: my own. I maintain that improving my conscientious behavior changes society. If it doesn't then we're all doomed.

If no other being can be improved and I will not be, then the cycle of wrong, bad, and evil will spin us out of existence and all that's left is to hold on until the end. No amount of government intervention will change anything -- partly because bad will remain bad and evil people will remain evil, society won't budge, and I won't change to make a difference.

If I can make a favorable or downright positive difference to one other individual, the net value of society improves.

The premise that we can't change another person comes next, but right now I have chores to do, and little time. I'll come back to this soon and address the changing of conscience in others.

With today's labor statistics announcement, our official unemployment rate ranks alongside the joblessness of early 1930, about six months into the Great Depression. Over a half million workers are reporting. The market (as I write) is down another two percent and bobbling.

One major difference is that most workers today stop claiming after benefits run out. Another is that we have the chronic unemployment that falls under different categories like social service recipients.

On the positive side, we do have unemployment insurance to offset some of the panic and suffering. On the negative side, that contributes to a debt to GDP ratio of over 220%.

Put that debt in perspective by calculating what would happen to your household if you owed nearly two and a quarter times your annual salary, and decided to improve your situation by spending another 10% of your salary to make it all better.

I'm a lightweight. Really and truly, what do I know? Michigan's Auto Makers are six billion dollars of business currently asking for around $30 billion to save the government $200 billion and up to 200 million jobs. Those numbers rattled around the Senate halls today like haggles in a flea market.

With such bargain prices, who could object? Few Senators seemed reluctant to hand it over, based on their questions to the auto and union execs. Still the question remains, "Then what?" Tennessee's Senator Bob Corker asked a few poignant questions. I know very about him, but during the hour and a half that I watched, he seemed like the only one as mystified as me about handing over the cash.

We're talking about chump change here. Compared with the silence in which the carpet was pulled from under America's feet with the bank bailout (that's still being reformulated to save an industry that was going fail by last week if they didn't get it all now, what is this $30 billion and why the publicity?

I have a few questions that nobody seems to be asking, like how is $700 billion actually going to change anything except to add a very expensive extension to a long, boring movie about American business and government? How did this nation get in a position where Senators say their states can't afford more job losses? Why should it cost the government $200 billion if car makers close their doors? How in the name of Kwanzaa did nobody in Washington or Detroit see this coming?

Oops.

The Liberty Bell has always been cracked. The one sitting silent in Philadelphia is not the first, nor will it be the last, but each of them has cracked.

In April of 1993 I became truly passionate about politics and America's abandoned history. Fifteen and a half years later, it seems like nothing but a personal hobby. I'm frustrated and sad.

The frustration stems from a lack of interest by other people, and a consistent wall of Partisan adherence. I dedicated several hours of every day to the study and philosophy of freedom's clanging bell, government and civic history, and the ethics of sovereignty for about twelve years, and continue to work at it.

In a University environment my studies would have earned me a doctorate, but I don't care about the title. It means nothing -- not because nobody will listen to "wise old me," (I am not, and know it, and that is the greatest wisdom I have) but because we fell off an edge and lost all of our freedom at some point during my own lifetime. Being thoroughly convinced, It started to seem silly pursuing dreams of a renewed and better America several years ago. I put politics on a shelf. Maybe politics should stay there. Truth and dialogue should not.

Dante penned the words to describe a Satanic Hell that will not let me quit: "[E]ternal I endure. All hope abandon ye who enter here." It makes no difference if you believe in a creation named Satan or not -- you do believe in enduring evil. We must not abandon hope, even if it takes a holiday.

Pete's recent comments struck me. An honest dialogue is necessary, and it must remain an open cause even if confusion, ignorance, selfishness, greed, self-centeredness and brainwashing remain overwhelming. Sadly, the most significant challenge means abandoning our personal wants and prejudicial wishes, and striving for responsibility: the challenge prevents truth and liberty. This is the challenge: We need all the responsibility we can assume in order to break the chains. And that still might not be enough.

In far too many conversations over the years, both on and offline, otherwise intelligent people have said something to the effect that, "Liberty means government must do this or that to set us free." That is the antithesis, the exact opposite, of freedom, and we deserve no liberty if that remains our opinion and our goal.

Freedom's bell is superglued to morality, commitment, and responsibility. The adhesive is stronger than the parts themselves. Give up one and the bell does not crack, it shatters. I'm starting to see the history of that bell as a sign that liberty will never ring true from the tower, but it serves as an example of the goal. People in every self-indulgent camp say the same thing: "Freedom is not free." They are all correct, and they always follow it up with something that means, "Somebody else better start paying for it," and they scoff and spit at those who pay their share to mend the bell and let freedom ring.

It's an uphill battle, but I'm in it for keeps. Because I'm not fighting for my own liberty (I have my Lifelong and eternal freedom and joy deep in my ethics) the only thing you'll hear from me is unrefined truth from my experience. No more plans or compromised ideas, just the truth that I absolutely must believe and practice to be true.

Real properties and intellectual ideas of corporations must be used to a determined
level of capacity and supply a meaningful percentage of the demand, contracted
to outside interests, sold at market value, or opened to competitors and new
ventures.

Lawsuits at the national level would be first approved by grand jury as criminal charges
are now. Lawsuits would be required to demonstrate "clear and compelling
evidence" of harm, loss, defamation, malpractice, negligence, etc., that
results in personal harm or loss. Such suits would be restrained to an
individual's harm or loss plus fees and necessary expenses, and any
"punitive damages" would only be prosecuted criminally.

The idea of "Crops" in my title relates to the current "crop of
crap" that we plant and harvest annually in federal laws stemming from and
leading to personal foolishness and negligence. It will take a lot more than a
platform to eliminate stupid decisions being deferred to the populace, and
neither corporations nor individuals should be held liable for moronic behavior
from an otherwise autonomous human being. If, for instance (actual cases) an
individual is dumb enough to put a hot cup of coffee between her legs when she
stops for a morning snack, that's her fault. If reading a billboard causes a
bumblehead to strike a tree, the individual should have his driver's license
revoked. If a 760 pound person breaks a chair in a restaurant, he should lose
weight or choose seats more wisely.

Axiom-Delimited Foundational America (ADF America) stridently adheres to three axioms of government: all of our citizens are human beings and have a right to the struggles and successes of being human beings without "preventative" interference; because concentrated power will corrupt, all due diligence will apply to prevent the concentration of power beyond society's natural and rapid rejection of it; and because each individual must act according to the dictates of right and wrong, all will be respected to act in keeping with intelligence, honesty, and socially positive ways that do not interfere with the rights of others or to the detriment of society, and will not face punishment or prior restraint for potential crimes. (The wording might continue to change -- for a more technical definition of these three axioms, see Why I'm No Longer Libertarian.)

Founded on these three axioms, ADF America always favors the development, and protection, of individual liberties as the two primary functions of government. ADF accepts limited responsibility for societal bargaining to open markets and prevent restrictions, injuries, and injustices to Americans in international affairs and in personal and professional affairs while on foreign soil, and will facilitate the common defense of its citizens and borders, lands and possessions.

ADF America will take no role in personal behavior of any citizen except those employed by the national government, will have no sovereign power over any state or local government except to maintain clear standards of national position, and advise and recommend axiomatic adherence; and continue to require republican forms of government for all states, and simple state compliance with the following ADF America principles:

All people, as individuals, receive equal opportunity without apportionment, minimum federal standards, or political favoritism, including their axiomatic right to apportion or show personal favoritism in all private and business affairs, except when to do so would result in imminent danger to another human being, and then no crime would be committed, but cease and desist orders may be carried out at once; no violation exists without active initiation of a crime or absolute impending threat; and where personal rights may serve to inhibit or interfere in the personal rights of others, no prior restraint may be initiated or enforced.

Yeah, it's got lots of loopholes and absences, but it's my starting point.