The scope of this book is broad because the underlying objective is human dysfunction and how to correct that dysfunction. The individual is molded by their environment, and yet human beings control their environment which creates a chicken or the egg kind of conundrum. Why are humans dysfunctional, because they are a product of their dysfunctional environment. Why is the environment dysfunctional, because it is a product of dysfunctional human beings.
The root of human dysfunction is self deception, expressed in denial which is a product of bias reinforcing behavior. What does this statement mean? Bias reinforcing behavior is the habit of pursuing information and experiences that reinforce what a person believes is true which feels good. When a person is confronted with information that challenges their beliefs there is a bad feeling. To discover that a belief is untrue or morally wrong, this takes away the ability of the belief to produce good feelings. For example, if you’re a republican and a person is explaining to you how the republicans are not representing the interest of the public this may cause you to feel bad and you will avoid that person and avoid that information. It isn’t only about your value of republicans, but other objects that you associate with republicans, ideas of liberty that feel good, people like parents and friends who cause you to feel good, as well as countless other objects. If you’re a republican, reading the aforementioned may already be initiating a warning response, the trickling in of stress as you think this writer is biased against republicans for using that party as an example. There is no bias in this book, so while I will offend many republican biases, I am equally if not more offensive to democrats, radicals, and others.
Self deception is a product of people having a value of things that is greater than the value of the truth. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, some of it is subconscious, where the bad feeling is warning that the beliefs you derive pleasure from are in danger. It isn’t only that the truth takes joy in the sense that the pleasure and well being you experience through beliefs is based on a false perception, but also from lowering your self worth as what you like is your identity. The truth has the ability to lower your self esteem. The truth temporarily opens up uncertainty because every detail that a person accepts as true has a relationship with other details. Uncertainty is the basis for fear. Finally, there are moral implications as a person who is telling you the truth is imposing on your perception of reality which you prefer to actual reality for the pleasure you derive from that outlook.
Self deception is conscious and subconscious. It is subconscious when information is avoided and rejected based on a feeling, where the individual refuses to pay attention to what is being said based on that feeling. In some cases the information cannot be understood because the belief that something is true prevents the true information from connecting with other information about the subject. In other cases it is conscious, where a person refuses to accept the information because it compromises internal or external interests. External interests when the lie is of material value, where they profit from the perpetuation of people believing something that is untrue. In others situations there is rationalization, where the person knows what the person is saying is true, but reasons that there are people more knowledgeable on the subject who would be able to refute it, or they reason that the lie serves some higher purpose. They refuse to acknowledge the truth outwardly, even though internally they know the thing they believe is not true, so they suppress their doubts and maintain the belief with others for the social value the lie has.
Communication cannot take place because people want what they think is true to be true, not what is true. The truth doesn’t feel good. In order to understand the value of the truth we begin with self interest, where self interest is liberty, to do as one pleases.
Why is liberty true? All the results on this planet are the product of the free will of the creatures on this planet, physical laws, and the interaction between the host bodies in the solar system. There is no result on this planet that is not the product of these elements. The second reason why liberty is true, is because in all settings and at all times, every creature wants to do what it wants to do.
What determines free will? We begin with a decision. Anytime I use the word value I am associating an object (which can be anything: person, place, feeling, thought, idea, statement, etc) with a feeling. For example, the idea of people being free, having the means to do what they want to do and being free from imposition feels good to me. The object is the idea I have of liberty, and the value of that object is the feeling derived from that idea.
A decision begins with the value of an object. You want what you want because the feeling of obtaining that object or of performing that act feels good. A decision begins with the value of the object versus the time and energy to obtain that object (object can be interacting with a physical object, or it can be an act, and an act can even be a thought). Second, if the value of the object is greater than then the burden of the time and energy that must be invested to obtain the object, the next phase of the decision making process is the consequence of obtaining that object as it relates to other goals of greater value than the object. The third element of decision making is morality. If the act to obtain the object causes a person to compromise a moral rule, the value of the object must be greater than the moral feeling that will result from having acted immorally. Moral feelings may be present before once intentions are made, or it may be in anticipation of how one will feel for having committed the moral act. There’s much more on this in the Sequencing and Comparison section of the book, but I mention it here for the purpose of introducing the book.
Without knowing what is true, or refusing to acknowledge what is true, a person will place value on objects the objects do not possess (like things they wouldn’t like), and do things they wouldn’t do if they knew what was true. People are led to and fro by feelings they do not understand. Having a value of a thing that is higher than the value of the truth compromises motivation, or a person is not doing what they want to do.
Self deception also compromises know-how, where an individual cannot efficiently navigate circumstances to fulfill purposes when they think things are true that are false and things that are false are true. Self deception prevents learning in some cases because the individual cannot learn when components of a subject are contradicted by false things the person thinks are true. Since self interest is doing what you want to do, self interest is compromised by self deception where people do what they wouldn’t do, and suffer from compromised know-how, affecting their ability to do. The definition of stupidity is behavior lacking good sense or good judgement, the quality of being unintelligent. Harming one’s own self interest demonstrates a lack of good sense and good judgement, the habit being an unintelligent quality. People are stupid, but it isn’t genetic, it’s learned behavior, and the causes can be identified and remedied.
Self deception also harms the collective interest by preventing communication from taking place. Communication cannot take place because people believe what they prefer to believe even if there is no factual basis for what they believe. They refuse to acknowledge facts and often there are multiple positions about a subject that are popular, and there isn’t a factual basis for any of them. People accept opinions about subjects as fact, without having any understanding of the subject. Worse yet, what they want to be true, and have accepted as true, prevents them from learning the subject to understand where they are mistaken.
Self deception is the root of all evil because it obstructs communication which harms the collective interest in more ways than personal disputes, but as it relates to systems that determine opportunity. What is evil but harming the interests of others, or imposing on their liberty? What is stupidity but harming your own interest and imposing on your own liberty? Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True is the intelligent value of the truth as it relates to liberty.
In writing and personal interaction there is no way to create interest in material that people do not want to be true. They block it out consciously, subconsciously, and there are many who do not know what a fact is, or what context, contradiction, consistency or an interest is. They’ve heard someone who they think knows alot about something say something, and they think that is a fact. You can define all the components of a subject, literally show them every relevant point and show them how what they think doesn’t apply to the subject or is not true. Without acknowledging any point you’ve made they will repeat the same stupid shit they began with which has been invalidated. In other cases there is silence, where silence is usually the in person response.
The first issue is communication which has effectively walled me off from meaningful interaction with this species. This is especially problematic for me because I’m perceiving what is actually happening, while the rest of people are living with the perception they prefer. It doesn’t matter who it is, liberals, conservatives, left, right, radicals, the religious, atheists, or the apolitical, academics, or any brand of outlook people’s bias stems from. They ignore you because they prefer their lies. They can be right within their group so long as they shut you out, and shut you out from their group.
I had a period of time in my life, after living an unwanted childhood for the first 8 years, after being incarcerated for 6 years between the ages of 14 and 24, where I was able to make enough money to pay my bills, and I could look at myself and the world around me and ask why? Why am I like this? Why is the world like this? Why are people in this country and why are people around the world living in miserable, stress filled, and struggling circumstances? It isn’t a question asked to satisfy curiosity. It is a question asked because I need to know why it exists and how it exists to end the existence of it.
As I began to understand the causes and functioning I sought out seemingly like minded people and groups. These groups were not concerned with liberation. Liberation from various circumstances is the claim for their existence, but to participate in the group requires accepting things that are not true, and working towards aims that do not accomplish that objective. I participated in one organization for a few months in Los Angeles, but the head organizer wasn’t interested in education and accomplishing goals, she was more interested in having an organization for the social function it served, attracting attention through sloganism, the feelings of importance and false moral affirmation the group gave her, and probably the anticipation of financial benefits the organization would eventually provide her. I checked this organization’s website a few months back (Participated in 2014) and from pictures and content it appears she has accomplished those goals, but still has no substantive explanations for what is, or ideas to improve people’s quality of life.
Other organizations, where in some cases I was circumstantially limited in participation, but also unacknowledged by organizers, were the same thing. They lie to maintain a faulty perspective of problems and most of their members are there for social interaction and moral affirmations. Every group I’ve attempted to become involved in, I’m prevented from inclusion because truth, liberty, and problem solving are my purposes for soliciting the groups attention, not the feelings of being included in a group. Feelings that come from being able to socially interact and build relationships around underserved and ill-understood social justice causes. You can be in a group as long as you say as they say and do as they do, but doing so undermines my purposes of being in the group when what you say and what you do isn’t true, and doesn’t improve people’s lives.
I know no person who has ever lived has approached human issues with the level of purity and objectivity that I have approached these issues with. I’m not saying that to exalt myself above the rest of the species, I’m saying this, because had these questions been approached objectively, everything I’ve discovered could have been discovered by any person who has ever lived. There have always been underlying values that were higher than truth and liberty. I don’t exalt myself above the rest of the species because I understand that I’ve benefited from these hellish circumstances, and every interaction I’ve had has contributed to me developing these values and this understanding. If you want to destroy something you’ve helped create then all of you can have the tyranny that you choose, and this is why hell should exist. Ideally, people should be able to choose tyranny and have that tyranny forever.
I was hesitant about including the following explanation in the introduction mainly because it is part of the book as the existential implications for liberty as the basis of morality, but acceptance of it is not central to the premise Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True. It also doesn’t weigh into the political, social, and economic analysis of popular misconceptions, systems, issues, and solutions . I intended to keep it in the section Liberty as the Basis for Morality and Ethics and the Establishment of Objective Good. I don’t want my personal existential understanding to prejudice people against the content of the book.
It also isn’t something I am evangelical about or promote. If a person understands liberty as morality that is enough. If they understand the analysis of issues and the merit of the solutions proposed to solve those issues that is enough. If they understand the value of the truth that is enough. My priority are those things relevant to improving the quality of human life on earth. With that said, I also know my understanding of existence is more probable and more consistent than any other person who has ever lived on this planet. It is deducing the purpose of the universe and the purpose of life within the universe by recognizing liberty as the basis for morality, the basis for creation, and consequently as the morality of any creator which has implications for existence totally. Since it is relevant to the introduction, and it is relevant generally, instead of leaving it buried in a book that may go unread by many, I am going to include it in the introduction.
If you consider the idea of non-physical consciousness, something of a holographic existence where consciousness exists within a different form where creation can take place limitlessly, it requires something new to expand on what is known. In addition to the knowledge, it requires new beings with different values. Not moral values but things they like which directs creation and the pursuit of knowledge.
This is why I have written that the universe is the reproductive mechanism of consciousness. It is likely cyclical as some theories suggest expanding and contracting to produce different life forms, some of which evolve and develop into conscious beings like humans, and others that never reach that stage of development.
Liberty is the only basis for morality. The creatures who exist within this universe did not ask to exist. It isn’t fair to cause something to exist and force that creature to adhere to the morality of liberty. Depending on a person’s understanding and application, if that person chooses tyranny as their preference and governor, that being should be able to continue in tyranny. There are two options. The first is more probable, but the second is more preferable. The first is a being that chooses tyranny as a mode of operation is deleted so to speak. It is the same as if they never existed. The second which is a preferable scenario to me, is a separate non-physical space where tyranny is the mode of operation and powerful groups of beings control the less powerful. Similar to what is on earth.
The justification for hell is simple. 1: ignorance is no excuse because what a person doesn’t know is determined by how they prioritize their values. Your attention is drawn to objects based on that object’s value to you. As I mentioned, value is determined by feelings, and some objects derive value from other objects. An example from the book is the value of a political party, may be drawn from the value of a parent, where the parent has value to the child, and that value transfers to the political party, transfers to ideas, transfers onto people, and these are identity defining values. When an individual’s value of an object is greater than his value of the truth, the individual will consciously and subconsciously avoid truth that harms his value of those objects. If I am sharing an observation related to representation in government, showing that the Green New Deal was not a plan despite the controversy that grew up around it, people do not want to hear and accept that because it lowers AOC’s value to them, and their value of her is associated with ideas attached to other people and objects including themselves. Or, another person might not be open to hearing it because people they like with similar associations have said it’s socialism and will bankrupt the country with a 90 trillion dollar price tag, so they don’t want to know that these things are not true.
Ignorance is a product of having a value of things that is higher than the truth. People don’t know what they could know because they lack objectivity which impacts morality, and their unwillingness to acknowledge true information is responsible for their ignorance. You haven’t exposed yourself to information or asked the question you would act if you weren’t trying to preserve your lies. Ignorance is no excuse for operating out of tyranny.
This tyrannical mode of operation includes support and participation in systems that impose on the liberty of others. Circumstances are imposed by systems and are the product of collective consent. If you don’t know why people are in trapped positions or how systems function, this is a product of being content with your advantages within the system, and the propensity to consider one’s accomplishments as a product of their personal greatness, as opposed to systemic advantage. Advantage doesn’t consist solely of financial advantages although it is the main determinant of advantage and disadvantage. The nation celebrates the exceptions who rise from a lower starting point into success but it isn’t likely for most people. This is to say that I believe ordinary people who consider themselves to be good in personal conduct are tyrants by way of indifference to their systemic advantage and how that advantage creates disadvantages for others within this country and abroad.
The second justification for eternal hell isn’t based on the idea that you did x amount of bad things which were greater than your y amount of good things. It is based on liberty, where an individual has decided that they will exercise their liberty to no bounds even if it interferes with the liberty of others. That is how they want to operate and they should be free to exist in an environment with others who operate likewise. It’s about your understanding and application. Death is the only barrier that prevents a person from not continuing forever in this mode of operation. Meaning it isn’t the imposition of an eternal punishment for crimes committed in a finite period of time, it is allowing people to continue in an environment that is conducive to their values. As far as the degree of their imposition is concerned, the extent to which one imposes is determined by their opportunities to impose.
For example, my daughter (14) was with her boyfriend and her mom at Target. Her boyfriend saw the parent’s of one of his friends at Target. My daughter’s boyfriend makes an effort to be friendly and leave good impressions with his friend’s parents. He commented that his friend told him that they were driving him crazy. Later my daughter told me the parents took away the video game system and imposed other restrictions for him telling his friend they were driving him crazy. What did the child do but express in a way that wasn’t disrespectful that his parents were a general annoyance? Presume the parents were the king and queen of the world. If they operate from the same principle basis they would impose restrictions on people who criticize them. Since they’re not they impose on their child who they have authority over. The opportunity to impose may limit the degree in which people impose on others, but it doesn’t change that they are willing to impose on others arbitrarily.
The concept of eternal hell is morally valid. It is logically required because liberty and tyranny cannot exist in the same space. The propensity of the tyrant to impose is in conflict with the propensity of liberty to prevent and remove imposition. Upon death, in whatever form consciousness takes on, the beings who operate from principles of liberty, cannot be in the same space as those who operate on principles of tyranny. Meaning either separate spaces must exist, or the essence of the tyrants consciousness must cease to exist. Ideally it would be a choice since no being asked to exist.
The idea of the survival of consciousness after death is appealing to human beings because having existed you don’t want to not exist anymore. There is a bias in all of us to believe that consciousness survives death. To me, the idea is believed to be probably true because of the moral and logical implications of causing something to exist temporarily, and then not exist anymore. Which also leads me to believe that hell probably exists as an option to non-existence.
Morally, to create a universe that allows for conscious beings to come into existence only for those beings to stop existing is imposing. Since any consciousness or group of consciousness that is, would not want to stop existing, to cause something to exist and take that existence away is imposing. Any god or gods no matter how powerful, cannot violate their own morality, and the principle basis for morality is imposition.
Logically, as I mentioned and will reiterate in Liberty as the Basis, the purpose of the universe is to host life and for that life to evolve into intelligent life. Life and evolution isn’t an anomaly that only occurs on earth, life exists in extreme environments and has been shown to exist anywhere that conditions occur for it to do so. Astronomers have discovered earth like planets consisting of rocky surfaces, iron cores, and liquid water that presumably have life. There is probability bordering on certainty that life exists in abundance throughout the universe, even if interstellar travel is impossible or if very few species ever exist long enough to develop it. The issue being the dangers of space travel where a ship could be damaged and developing a source of power that can be transported and sustain a population generationally for the tens and hundreds of thousands of years it takes with conventional thrust technology to traverse the great distances between stars.
Since I’ve already deviated from the opening point of the previous paragraph (logical basis for the survival of consciousness after death), any civilization that exists long enough to achieve interstellar travel will operate out of liberty based morality, or as human beings are about to do through climate change, will destroy themselves. Something I mention since scientists with narrow perspectives have attempted to impose the human experience on civilizations that are socially superior. People have stated that since on earth whenever one civilization has encountered a more technologically advanced civilization, the less advanced civilization is conquered and exploited and this serves as the basis for the reasoning that an encounter with extraterrestrial civilization would lead to that end. Human beings are tyrants, whereas any civilization that exists long enough to develop interstellar travel has done so because they know the intelligent value of the truth as it relates to liberty, and the purpose of understanding liberty as it relates to morality and social function.
Since the universe exists to host life and the evolution of life, what purpose does life serve? It could be argued that the universe is an experiment intended for the advancement of knowledge created by a higher form of life. The higher life form has the ability to create it, but not the ability to extract the consciousness that develops within it. If human beings could create a mini-verse that allowed them to study the evolution of life, the development of intelligence, and formation and interaction of civilizations, would we do it? Of course. That could be the universe and that is a valid position.
I don’t believe that is a likely scenario. There is new evidence suggesting that the universe once it reaches a certain point will come back together. I don’t pretend to understand the math and the physics the presumption is based on, but it is a valid theory among people who do. If true the universe perpetually expands and contracts producing life endlessly. For what purpose?
Consider a higher form of life, conscious beings without physical form. How can a conscious being without a physical form reproduce? I don’t know where this consciousness exists or where it came from, I don’t have any information to speculate on it. Say at its earliest point it exists with 10 separate beings. How long does it take with the experience of those beings before the ability of these beings in an environment with no physical limitations to create everything they are interested in creating and do everything they are interested in doing? It doesn’t matter because you have an eternity to do it so eventually existence becomes stale. Liberty, which requires the absence of imposition, wilts under the imposition of existence where all things desired have lost their value due to over exposure, and experience is limited by the same beings possessed of the same values.
Even if these beings benefit from observing the physical universe there are limitations to the benefits of observation and limitations socially by a finite number of members. Consciousness has to be able to reproduce, and since the universe exists to produce life that is conscious, it is likely that our physical reality, is the reproductive mechanism of consciousness that populates a space of liberty for the liberty minded, and tyranny for the tyrannically minded. If I’m wrong, the morality of liberty is still right, ideal, and consistent, and my conception of existence is more probable, morally consistent, and more consistent with the physical reality than other conceptions of existence.
I don’t talk about or try to promote my understanding of existence. As I stated, it’s either right or it’s wrong but the morality of liberty is true. Even liberty is secondary, where at times I explain it if I am trying to make a moral point as it applies to a point of action, or I am using it to explain why Truth Over Everything is the intelligent value of truth. What I lead with is the confrontation of misconception that contaminates people’s understanding of subjects to help people better understand the subject, and in that understanding they are positioned to understand solutions. At these junctions I make appeals to self interest. No one is interested because they become offended since the misconceptions are central to maintaining a perspective that they derive good feelings from.
I know human beings have the innate tools cognitively to understand what they must understand to correct their dysfunction. I have a theory of the mind called Sequencing and Comparison and if it is understood by people it will increase human intelligence. It is the product of needing to understand myself, why I think, feel, and behave, and the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of others stemming from the need to understand and overcome denial. I know people can understand, because I was once a person who did not understand who now does. I understand not because I am possessed of innate qualities that have led me to understanding, but because objectivity led me to the questions, and I maintained that same objectivity in pursuit of the answers.
I know that when one understands that liberty is true, and the morality of liberty, their value of the truth changes. When I’m confronted with information that challenges what I know, I’m not harmed by it because truth is my highest value, so I welcome correction because it increases the purity of my truth and increases my self esteem when there is an opportunity to improve on it. When I’m wrong I adopt the correct position. I know human beings can be more intelligent because the lack of intelligence among our species isn’t a product of genetic defect, but social norms.
Morality reduces to the following statement: You can do what you like, but I don’t have to like what you do; so long as what you do doesn’t prevent anyone else from doing what they want to do. Any other restrictions on behavior is the imposing of one’s subjective value onto another and is immoral.
What do I hope to accomplish? It begins with establishing a market or a way for me to make money from my written material to improve my circumstances to the extent that I can operate efficiently and free from present stress. In establishing that market and interest I want to create a non-profit staffed by interested people to work towards the development, refinement, and proliferation of the ideas in this book. The Organization for Liberation and Popular Legislation. OLPL. With this organization acting as a hub, the goal will be as my goal has been, to incorporate civically minded organizations and causes into what OLPL intends to accomplish by showing how the solutions promoted by OLPL will accomplish the causes these groups intend to accomplish. I’m looking for an opportunity to advance human interests and make a living doing it. Something I don’t think is too much to ask considering how many people purport that as their goal, earn a living doing it, and do not possess a fraction of the purity in their intent that I possess, or a fraction of the ability to understand and create practical solutions for solving these problems.
What I am asking for is for you to read this book, and if you don’t understand something to ask me questions related to what you don’t understand so I can clarify it, for you and others. One of the greatest obstacles I’ve faced is the absence of feedback, where I try to simplify but I don’t know what is not understood. Simplification can turn into complication. For example, if I am trying to explain what a rocketship is and what it will accomplish, it may suffice to provide a rough outline of how earth’s gravity interacts with objects, how combustion creates force, and how the rocket will generate this amount of force to reach escape velocity. If every person I try to explain this to is uninterested or not understanding, I may try to simplify it by explaining each component of the rocket ship, and in doing so, although it is simple, it becomes more complicated to understand because people have no point of reference for the components. This is something that started to happen to me with Seq Comp. After I reread it it made perfect sense to me, but I knew I broke it down to too small of components for people to grasp. I was rejected by psychological journal after psychological journal without explanation and I knew they didn’t understand what I was submitting, because had they understood it, even if it wasn’t appropriate for the journal they should have been interested. There were also errors in those versions that they could have cited as a reason for rejection but did not.
Second, if you read the book and benefit from it I want people to donate to further the cause and compensate me for contributing to your understanding. Obviously if you have the means, which is part of the reason I am distributing the book as I am, because I don’t want the absence of means to prevent people from having an opportunity to access this information. The other aspect of this distribution method is marketing, since people are unlikely to purchase a book from an author whom they do not know.
There should be a market for my material. There is a market for lies and shortsighted non-insightful but bias reinforcing analysis, ideas, and information. People are paid for this. While comparatively my material is much more valuable, there is no market. Third, if you don’t want to read the book, I am asking you to donate to compensate me for work that should have a market but does not, because human beings are tyrannical, preferring the value of things above the value of the truth. Since you have benefited from the circumstances that cause me to be trapped, you should contribute to the liberation of a person who is trapped by the systems you benefit from. Furthermore, the consequences of my success will lead to greater opportunities for other disadvantaged people and improve everyone’s quality of life.
Below is an outline of the book.
I’m beginning with the Green No Deal, it is the first of 3 articles related to climate change and proposals to limit emissions. The title of the chapter addresses the popular misconception that there was a Green New Deal in Alexandria Ocascio Cortez’s resolution she called the Green New Deal, hence the title the Green No Deal. AOC’s GND is a list of goals with no substance and the chapter quotes enough of the resolution to demonstrate this.
The next chapter is Bernie Sanders Green New Deal, which although still terribly flawed, does include some vague ideas for implementation and spending. Bernie’s plan does include the first step in addressing climate change which is transitioning the grid to renewable energy. Although his plan has been dubbed as the nationalization of power, something that would be impossible to create the political will to accomplish, it doesn’t have to be that. Sanders wants to build the infrastructure for renewable energy including upgrading the grid and place the assets under the management of the Power Marketing Administrations who presently manage the sale of hydroelectric power sources. This is followed by regulating fossil fuel power generation out of existence. The general thought is, since the power companies claim to monopoly comes largely through their ownership of the grid, if the public owns the grid this will do away with the power companies. I don’t see this as the best course action or even a feasible course. The power companies still have the most comprehensive knowledge of managing and maintaining the distribution of power. I see a scenario where the public owns the infrastructure through the PMAs, and the power is sold to the utility company who maintains and distributes the power to the population and is entitled to some profit for providing the service. I also explain how having a private intermediary will serve as a check on the power of these public assets which will benefit the public.
Climate Change 101 Establishing Facts and Addressing Denial establishes the basic facts associated with climate change and the popular positions of deniers. The denial of climate change can essentially be reduced to a person not trusting thermometers or not trusting CO2 meters. More importantly, the article articulates the basic observations whereas many activists and concerned citizens argue with others by stating headlines and then accusing the skeptic of not believing in science, despite failing to share the observations their position is built on.
The truth is on the side of gun enthusiasts as it relates to gun violence and incidents of mass murder. Australian Gun Control and the Failure to Reduce Incidents or Casualties examines mass murder events 20 years prior to the mass murder that prompted gun control legislation, and the 20 years after the incident, and finds that gun control failed to reduce events or the number of people killed. The article is followed by a high quality debate on the subject of gun violence.
The next chapter is called Republicans, which explains the few areas of policy distinction with democrats. The parties are more or less the equal of two evils, but I find myself being much more critical of progressives than I am of republicans. As I explain in the article this is because republicans are much more open about the interests they serve and the public doesn’t require me to point these things out. The democrats on the other hand feign concern for the disadvantaged and create disadvantaged groups out of people who are not disadvantaged. Republicans are the wolves whereas the democrats are the wolves in sheeps clothing which confuses the sheep. The sheep don’t need to be shown the wolves who are not donning disguises.
We move into the Popular Myths of Tax Policy. The position of Republicans and Democrats on tax policy are addressed. The research of Emmanuel Saez is cited as an aid to address the popular misconceptions, which reduce to ideas that lower taxes stimulate economic growth, and that imposing extreme taxes on the extremely rich will produce enough revenue to meaningfully address economic inequality. There is no merit to either position, but these two lines of false reasoning represent the full spectrum of opinion on tax policy.
Immigration: Overstated and Uncorrectable explains that illegal immigration is well managed, and doesn’t require much more in terms of resource and attention dedication. US foreign policy is the cause, and because US foreign policy isn’t going to change neither will the living conditions that cause people to illegally immigrate to the United States. This article is succeeded by two articles that highlight recent US foreign policy in Latin America, Self Propelled Coup refers to the attempted coup in Venezuela by the United States and their European allies through Juan Guido, but rightly places the responsibility on the mismanagement of the economy by the Maduro administration. White Gold Coup discusses the removal of Evo Morales after the false accusations of fraud in the elections by the OAS which were supported by the US, and possibly other details will emerge with time concerning the role or knowledge of the US.
I removed a chapter related to foreign policy, having made most of the points in the chapters in the Comments and Exchange section. Coming out of immigration and the recent coup examples this seems like the best place to insert a chapter I call The Option, which proposes an option for resolving the Israel Palestine conflict. Since a Palestinian state can only be created by the approval of the United States and Israel, and neither of these states have an interest in creating a Palestinian state, The Option creates a way to improve the lives of Palestinians while also serving the interests of the United States and Israel.
The following chapter is called Social Mobility and the Deficiencies of Measure. The chapter acknowledges that although it is true anyone can make it in America, it is also true that everyone cannot and most people don’t. Most social mobility data measures mobility in quintiles, where moving from one quintile to the next signifies mobility as having taken place. This doesn’t tell us if any meaningful mobility has taken place as moving from the top of one quintile to the next may not indicate mobility of any significance. A true measure of mobility wouldn’t be income mobility, it would be wealth mobility, perhaps studying the last 30 years where the household wealth that the individual began in, is compared to the household wealth adjusted for inflation that the individual achieves over 30 years after living on his own.
A Crisis of Demand provides the inconvenient truth that a deceptive marketing campaign was not the cause of over prescribing that led to millions of American’s becoming addicted to opioid pain medication, leading many to heroin. The cause of the opioid crisis was the result of patients who sought the drugs to cope with their circumstances in life, or as an opportunity to make money through procurement and distribution of the pills, doctors knowing the dangers of addiction and abuse prescribed the medication for profit. That is how it happend, which contrasts greatly with the popular pharmaceutical company scapegoat narrative.
The next chapter is titled Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility and isn’t included for the subject of the article. I was involved in a discussion at my friend Shawn’s house about activists’ efforts to close down or fight for inmate rights in the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility. For the first half of the discussion what was being presented had me debating the difference between the Milwaukee County Jail and MSDF. This wasn’t the subject of controversy and I performed poorly by my standards but adequate by an objective measure. I included the chapter as a way to share my experience being in solitary confinement for 7 months as a 19 year old in prison as the conversation segued into that subject. It is experience that adds to my credentials when I am discussing disadvantages and struggles. What sets me apart from academics and intellectuals who are familiar with the numbers and observed effects through studies, is I understand what the numbers mean through experience, and the experiences of others who are known to me.
Poor White Sasquatch establishes that poor white people comprise the majority of poor people in the United States. It is the introduction of the overemphasis of race, gender, and sexuality discrimination, where the true measure of disadvantage in this country is class not race. Where a person of color, a woman, or a member of the LGBT community born into money is born advantaged to white people not born into money. Poor white people are a myth like the sasquatch, where there seem to be no reliable reports of our existence. Although past systemic racism has caused a greater proportion of people of color to begin poor, there are not definitive measurements of systemic racism, where race based economic comparisons are measuring the effects of the past not the effects of the present. The case is made that poor white people in this country are equally disadvantaged to any other poor racial group in this country, and in some cases more so. The progeny of poor people in this country are in the same situation as the progeny of other people. If you’re the descendant of a slave, or a person who was unable to access education or services, or denied employment based on race prior to the Civil Rights Act, the reason you are disadvantaged today is because those conditions did not allow your family to accumulate wealth to pass down to you. If you are white and you come from a poor family, your ancestors had to rely on others for opportunities to make money, and the money they made was barely adequate to cover their expenses. If what you earn is roughly equal to your expenses, the same as those who were discriminated against, you don’t have anything to pass down to succeeding generations either.
A Balance Stimulus seeks to reduce reliance on government and government programs to distribute money directly to the poor which will provide them options to create their own income opportunities. The cost of services is inflated through bureaucracy and often these services service the condition of being without providing much in the way of opportunity to help poor people make their way out of these circumstances. We can increase people’s opportunities and spend less doing it by not pretending that we know better what poor people need than poor people.
If I Was Black chronicles a few days of experiences traveling to Florida from Wisconsin for court. Although I have the actual explanations for treatment I’ve received from law enforcement, a judge, public defender, and even people in a small town, if I were black every one of these experiences could be interpreted as being racially motivated. There is a short summary at the end of the chapter explaining the formation of prejudice.
Poor Lives Matter: The Criteria for Deadly Force and Enforcement addresses the popular misconceptions of racial bias in the use of force by law enforcement, and establishes a criteria and agency for enforcement of the criteria to ensure the use of deadly force is only used when there is an objectively qualifable immediate threat to life. The idea is 4 years old but I’m including it because it is still relevant and hasn’t received the attention it should based on its potential to rectify a problem of public concern, and an issue that is important to law enforcement.
To continue making friends with progressives, the next chapter is called LGBT: Promotion Under the Guise of Tolerance. I’m of the belief that most people do not have a problem with what two consenting adults do with one another sexually. The issue many people have is that tolerance is used as a pretext to promote sexuality, which has harmful effects on children who are introduced to false concepts of gender identity and biological sexual orientation. I cite the most recent and largest study of it’s kind where geneticists found no basis for sexuality being genetic. I acknowledge that same sex sexual arousal is developed, and once developed a person may become or consider themselves gay. There is nothing wrong with that. The overemphasis of sexuality discrimination is addressed, and the distinction of dislike of behavior from homophobia.
The Founding Intents of the United States of America is the first of 3 articles that qualify the need for Centers for Economic Planning to achieve popular representation in the federal government. The national bias begins with the mythology of the founding, the deification of men who raised a mercenary army out of the poor to remove the ruling power, then consolidated power through the creation of a federal government designed to represent money to power. In a system where money is required to make money.
The bill of rights is an amazing document in the protection of individual rights. Created as such in order to protect those who created the constitution to protect themselves from the government they were creating should it ever become the instrument of popular will. The only way to protect themselves was to protect the rights of all people. They identified important features that represented individual rights and expressed them in a language that unequivocally protected them through law.
People are living in a country that was created to ensure that industry, which the founders represented at the time, would control matters of the state for their benefit and advantage over the general population. This is why democracy is decried by the founders, and why the economic interests of the founders determined what issues were important in creating the constitution, quantifiably so through the research of Robert A. McGuire.
This chapter explores the interests that molded the constitution and examines the organizational obstructions to popular representation. Many view the founding of this country as a noble period in human history, when in fact, as business, money, and power are concerned, there is little difference between then and now. History is taught through this noble lens which leaves people unwilling to question the organization of their government, and the intentions that went into the design. There is a good portion of the population who believes that what exists today is the result of the US deviating from the constitution and what the founders intended, when in fact, as far as the circulation of power is concerned, this is exactly what the founders intended.
The points made are substantive, but given the broad scope of this book and the narrow purposes served by the chapter, it isn’t comprehensive, but illuminating nonetheless. Whether the United States was intended to function as it does today or not, doesn’t change the way it functions today. That is much easier to show.
After the founding intents is the chapter called Government as the Facilitator of Money to Power. I refer to the data compiled by Thomas Ferguson, Lie Chen, and Paul Jorgenson, in their 2013 and 2018 papers pertaining to the 2012 and 2016 elections. I present their findings to establish definitively the role of money in politics, and distinguish policy shaping sums from non-influential sums. I answer the question we all know the answer to in why there are firms that support both parties, and both candidates, substantiating the claim with research that shows the return on political investment.
I’m not one to identify a problem without also identifying a solution. In the Founding Intents chapter I propose we split districts into 4ths quadrupling the number of representatives and senators, which minimizes the impact of advertising in elections because there simply isn’t enough time and space to create opinion around so many candidates. It would force candidates to run more localized campaigns where there are more opportunities for interaction with the public. It poses some challenges to legislating, but those challenges are not without remedy. I don’t like the idea because the public is probably more susceptible to being charmed in person than through advertising. Money is still the measure of an individual’s power to promote a message, whether we have 435 representatives or over 1700.
What we have is fine if everyone has a voice through industry. Not that industry is going to promote the interest of anyone else other than their shareholders, but if people have significant ownership through corporate like entities governed by the public, then the public through the profits of their owned businesses, can compete in investment politics. The chapter Centers for Economic Planning General Outline succeeds Government as the Facilitator of Wealth to Power.
A Center for Economic Planning operates through management elected from the people within the jurisdiction it is created in, typically it will be a city or a county. In addition to electing management the people have direct input and oversight into investment strategies and profit spending. The CEP creates and acquires businesses at the direction of the public, allowing people without money to meaningfully participate in decisions of production. We are increasing opportunities, the quality of opportunities, and new businesses can be geared towards transitioning to renewable energy, sustainability, and community needs. Most importantly, through the profits of the businesses people will own through their Centers for Economic Planning, people will be able to influence politics through lobbying and campaign funding on a level where they can compete against industry. We can address issues of income and wealth inequality through CEPs, as well create popular representation in government.
The Florida Ordeal explains my experience dealing with the Florida criminal justice system, where a small amount of marijuana and THC edibles led to me being charged with 4 misdemeanors and 2 felonies. It chronicles my experience defending myself primarily against the public defender and the judge. I also provide some background information related to my previous 9 months being on the road as an interstate mover and what brought me to Florida to begin with.
The Just Law Amendment was inspired in part by the Florida Ordeal. In a republic, where the creation of law takes place without direct public input and oversight, citizens should be able to defend themselves against unjust laws, and we can objectively qualify what just means. I have much grander ideas for liberty as it relates to legal philosophy and incorporating that legal philosophy into the constitution. The Just Law Amendment is a constitutional amendment that allows a criminal defendant to create a defense based on the law being unjust, where unjust is can be proven by showing a law has net imposition, where what the law imposes is greater than the imposition it prevents.
Liberty as the Basis for Morality and Ethics: The Establishment of Objective Good. I identify how liberty is applied as the basis for morality as well as share the existential implications, and some personal speculation concerning existential questions built on liberty.
The second last chapter is Sequencing and Comparison which define the variables that produce motion in conscious beings. Thoughts, feelings, and the decision making process The article addresses issues with modern psychology and generally describes how people’s outlook, perception, and opinions are formed. I’m not sure how many or who will understand it only because much of it requires understanding life through frames of impression which is probably foreign to most people. The ability to understand points of action. The concepts are very simple.
I preferred to begin this book with Liberty as the Basis followed by Seq Comp but I feared the material wouldn’t have been understood which would have resulted in people missing the benefit from other material that is beneficial. I also think reading the other material first may create some familiarity with the concepts and give the reader a better chance of understanding Seq Comp when they get to it. With that said, because this book spans multiple disciplines, if there is something that is not understood, remember you can always return to it or pass it by.
The final chapter is Comments and Exchanges, consisting of social media exchanges and comments that identify the bias of media and individuals, as well as measures public opinion and understanding of popular issues.