Category Archives: government

“Freedom is the absence of risk.” -Tyrant

The government is not in the business of risk-management. This is an institution whose only real function and purpose is to extort behavior and money by means of its superior violence. This means that government represents the greatest risk to man on earth. The irony then that we task the government to keep us safe by managing our level of risk!

The State passes a child seat law,  but legalizes abortion, which destroys thousands of children every year. It demands that our children wear helmets when riding bicycles, then indebts our nation to the tune of trillions of dollars off the backs of the young who will be fleeced and extorted to pay that debt. It passes seatbelt laws and laws forbidding the sale of soft drinks of a certain size, then mass murders whole generations of men on battlefields in pointless foreign wars fought to preserve the financial interests of the plutocratic financiers. You can’t yell “fire!” In a crowded theatre, but you can run rank and object fear-mongering propaganda pieces about everything from a pandemic to presidential treason to the biological-based racism of the white man. The State can crown itself the sage and savior of civil rights while we all conveniently forget that this is the same State that upheld the interests of slave-holders and flesh-merchants for generations and legally enforced unholy segregation laws for generations after those slaves were finally free…but free only after a million men who never owned slaves and never profited financially or politically from slavery were maimed or murdered on battlefields over which the vast majority of politicians never shed a single tear.

Government risk-management? It would be the world’s funniest joke if it weren’t already the world’s most tragic tragedy.

The State’s ONLY  legitimate task, and even this fundamentally is quite specious, is to nurture a geopolitical context in which men are free from coercive force. Where they are free to conduct voluntary value exchange with one another without facing direct violations of person or property. The government can only be of any amount of benefit when its ONLY task is to discourage DIRECT violations of citizens—murder, theft, fraud, and invasion. Period. That’s it. It is a roaring lion; a blazing furnace; a hissing viper; a chained demon, which must be carefully watched with an ever vigilant and suspicious eye, and with hands on a whip which shall strike hard and fast at the first sign of  threat…at the mere hint of movement in the wrong direction. The monster can NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances be allowed to wander into our lives by some unconstitutional conveyance like “risk management”. That is a slippery slope which can only lead to tyranny. Think about it. If it’s the government’s job to keep you from getting sick, to keep you safe, then what part of your life are they not then entitled to have a primary say? What you eat; where you go; who you talk to; what you do for a living; how you travel; what groups you join…do you see how dangerous this is? Certainly isolating and sequestering at-risk populations is a good idea, but isolating the entire nation is NOT making a distinction between those at risk and those not. Everyone is a potential carrier and a potential victim at the same time. Which means that the government, in order to keep us “safe”, must control all of us. This is not public health, it is public slavery. The government has no constitutional right to prevent citizens from attending church, running their private businesses, patronizing businesses, going to parks, going to the beach, going to concerts, or traveling to other countries. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, privacy, property, and association. There is no disclaimer which says “except in case of public health crisis”.

Lockdown Hell: Altruism Instantiated (Part ONE)

One of the many interesting aspects of the unprecedented and disturbingly open, unabashed, and undisguised unconstitutionality being foisted upon the American public during the fabricated coronavirus crisis, is the novel iteration of the western sociopolitical zeitgeist, altruism. Altruism, in a nutshell, in its sociopolitical context, is the State-forced sacrifice of those deemed “privileged” to those who are deemed “under…or un-privileged”. This of course contradicts the very notion of “privilege” in that it by definition makes the “unprivileged” the greatest beneficiaries of the State’s coercive power, and the “privileged” the greatest victims…which renders the categories quite ironic, in that they are, in actuality, opposite. The ‘unprivileged” are significantly luckier than their privileged counterparts. But don’t strain your mind or credulity by attempting to square that circle. It cannot be done. The ethics of altruism are based on collectivist and determinist metaphysics which are by nature utterly irrational, and therefore in actuality inscrutable, which is why under the authority of the government agents of altruism you are not called to understand anything they say, but to simply obey. They are the enlightened philosopher kings, you are the unwashed barbarian masses. Comply or die. That’s the sum and substance of your usefulness to them and the total value of your existence, period.

When interpreting the categories of “privileged” and “unprivileged” according to our State overlords, we must understand that these, again, are ideas which are rooted in the inscrutable metaphysics of determinist collectivism, and consequently are interpreted according to mystical and thus fundamentally obscure notions, yet paradoxically they are quite  hyper-specific when physically dictated. At any rate, the general description is that being “privileged” or “underprivileged” has absolutely nothing to do with the “why” but only the “what” of human existence. In other words, WHY someone is categorized as “privileged” or “unprivileged” is simply “because they are”.  And by this I mean that it has nothing at all to do with the volitional choices and subsequent actions of the individuals so classified, or those related to the individuals so classified, such as parents or friends, with whom the “privileged” or “unprivileged” individuals may have been in some manner meaningfully related and thus so influenced. It has everything to do with one’s root existential state. That is, if you are “unprivileged” it is because you were born that way, and vice versa. “Privileged” and “unprivileged” is a product of your nature. That’s it. Thus, there isn’t anything you can do to manifest or could have done to prevent or ensure this natural condition. This is precisely why the State must implement equality and equity by force (legalized violence), and cannot rely upon citizens to work out their differences by their own choices and actions. No action or choice can change one’s very nature, for all actions and choices are a product of that nature, and thus all actions necessarily affirm and reinforce one’s “privileged” or “unprivileged” status. At the same time, ironically, or perhaps contradictorily, there is a sense of absolutist ethics which are secondary to the ethical primary of altruism, and these ethics are known as “social justice”, which is imbued and implied by one’s existential status as either “privileged” or “unprivileged”. The “unprivileged” are victims of some great and terrible injustice which though could not have been avoided as it is a function of their nature and not of any volitional action or consequence on the part of themselves or others nevertheless entitles them to ALL the legal benefits the State has the violent power to grant them in the interest of “social justice”, which again is the notion of existential and universal equality, which of course can never be achieved because the distinction between “privileged” and “unprivileged” is ALREADY, a-priori, itself existential and universal. Now, concordantly, the “privileged” are the evil perpetrators of all the injustice to which the “unprivileged” are so tragically subjected, and thus must be “held-accountable” and forced at State-gunpoint to “pay their fair share” in the interests of universal equality, despite the fact that there is no choice nor action which could have prevented the “privileged” from exploiting those who are “unprivileged”, or which could have prevented the “unprivileged” from actually becoming “unprivileged”, or themselves from becoming “privileged” in the first place…because, again, both groups are simply born that way.

And here again we see the inscrutable nature of collectivist metaphysics roaring to the forefront today with predictably disastrous consequences…those disastrous consequences being the complete undermining of the American Republic and the plenary and indefinite suspension of constitutional law, not to mention the irreversible and alarmingly substantial diminishing of the economy and faith in the nation on the whole in service to the “protection” of the public from the latest contrived boogeyman, but this one a phantom, which is supposed to be even more scary, called coronavirus. Once again do not try to apprehend the reasons, do not try to interpret or discern the meaning behind the actions of your government overlords, for it is not yours to know, because it is not you who has been given the “grace to perceive”. For that is reserved for those who have been called to rule. For you, on the other hand, it is forever a cloud of steam in your fist. The metaphysics of collectivism and the concordant ethics of altruism require only your submission. The “unprivileged” are required only to receive, the “privileged”, to sacrifice.

But which one are you?

Now that is a very interesting question. And the answer is predictably enigmatic, as I’m sure you understand: it depends. In the meta, you are both and neither…it is subjective, it is fluid. In context however it is terrifyingly empirical, objective, and corporeal.  And as we are talking about the manufactured coronavirus crisis, here I can provide a much more specific answer. Which I will do in part two.

END part ONE

The Trinity of Viruses: The State, the Citizen, the Coronavirus

Let’s say we give a pass to the blatantly tyrannical approach the United States government and state governments have taken in dealing with the coronavirus “crisis” in the early stages. Not that I would, personally, give any such pass. As far as I understand it, there is no asterisk at the bottom of the Constitution which allows for the wanton disregard of foundational liberties in response to a misunderstood and misrepresented respiratory ailment. But I suppose I understand the panic. After all, we in the United States are a narcissistic society of navel gazing cowards and altruistic fantasy-dwellers who are politically represented  by septuagenarian baby boomers who think they are entitled to eternal politcal power and eternal life, and who, like most baby boomers, are terrified of their own mortality, and who have become so drunk on the ever more potent twin fixes of coercive authority and unfathomable wealth that they are almost entirely unqualified for…well, anything.

So, we drink the elixir of mass panic and ignorance, rush from our homes screaming that the sky is falling, run back inside to our beds and pull up our blankies  and whimper and simper like children in a thunderstorm, and wait for the government to do what it does best—tyranny—to save us from the Chinese sniffles. Of course, there was much we could have done on our own without any of this overt government intrusion in our lives and businesses and families, but the only thing Americans are more afraid of than the coronavirus is personal responsibility and self-discipline.

Anyway, we might forgive the State for its rash, uninformed action seven weeks ago. There was only preliminary information about this virus, some very bad numbers and very inept and silly predictions from the Imperial College in London, along with the natural inclination of the State to shoot first an and ask questions later. But now we have the science…it has spoken. We have the testing, we have the data, we have OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that the coronaviru simply does NOT represent any credible mass medical threat to the United States, and that the vast majority of people in our nation will experience symptoms so mild that they will never, and have never, sought any formal medical treatment for them. In other words, anyone not over the age of 65 or with some immunocompromising chronic health condition(s) has about as much chance of dying from SARS COV-2 as they do in a car accident on their way to a jelly bean factory. OBJECTIVELY there is NO MEDICAL reason for the ongoing social and economic lockdown in our nation. None. Medically speaking, the lockdown should end immediately.

In case you don’t want to take my word for it, here is a list of some of the experts I have researched in drawing my conclusions on this matter. I suggest you do a simple YouTube search and see for yourself. Each of of these men is literally among the most awarded, experienced, and successful in their field. There are no ringers here:

Dr. Michael Levitt, Professor of Computer Science and Structural Biology, Stanford University Medical School; 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for designing a computer model for complex chemical interactions

Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University

Dr. John Giesecke, former State Epidemiologist for Sweden; Chief Scientist for the European Center for Disease Control; currently advising Swedish Agency for Public Health; currently advising Director General of the World Health Organization

Dr. Knut Wittkowski, former Head of the Department of Biolstatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design, Rockefeller University

Dr. David Katz, Founder and Director of Yale University’s Yale Group and Prevention Research Center

All of these experts agree on four basic premises, I have found. 1. That the widescale and indiscrimate lockdown measures were neither particularly effective nor reasonable  2. That these measures will most likely do much more harm in the long run than the virus ever will or can. 3. The lockdown will ultimately not have contributed much if anything at all to stopping the spread and evolution of the virus, and will almost certainly prolong the inevitable infection numbers and postpone herd immunity. 4. That the lockdown should be eased immediately because it represents an ACTUAL existential threat to public health

So, when I say that the lockdown measures are NOT medically necessary and that the coronavirus is not a credible threat to public health and that all politcal and media assertions that the lockdown measures are in the best interest of the citizen are complete lies, this is not my opinion. This is objective fact as stated by unrivaled experts in virology, epidemiology, mathematics, and chemistry, who have examined this virus from the point of view of years and years of experience and knowledges in dealing with just this kind of thing. In other words, it is settled science. You no longer have to convince anyone that the lockdown measures are a waste of time, are much more dangerous than the virus itself, and that it is little more than irrational paranoia and/or gullibility at this point which drives citizens to accept this tyranny and economic looting masquerading as public health policy.

So why are the lockdown measures still happening? Why are they not lifted now that we know that the reasons for them are no longer valid?

The answer is that the reason for thei lockdown was NEVER the virus, and so whatever science is saying about he virus has nothing at all to do with how the State is going to deal with it. At least, not THAT virus. You see, every law, act, regulaion, or decree which precedes from the State is NEVER ultimately designed to protect you from some danger or threat, be it a foreign enemy, or a neighborhood criminal, or a virus. Rather, these things are designed to protect the State from YOU. YOU are the disease it does not want ot contract. The lockdown is the mask IT dons to shield itself from the contagion known as the indivdivual citizen.

The virus arrived and It was advertised as an existential threat, based upon completely erroneous numbers along with general, plenary ignorance. The government, not an institution of reasoned action but of disproportionate overreaction, predictably burned the Constitution and then urinated on the fire, took out a sledgehammer and proceed to pound indiscriminately away at the econmomy and our civil rights. And we were okay with this because we were convinced that we would die…or, at least, would run out of toilet paper. Which, granted, is almost as bad. You see, people who are in fear for their lives will do things and allow things to be done to them which otherwise they would never fathom and never tolerate. Our politicians didn’t want us getting angry at their lack of action with respect this fake towering colossus of ravenous disease. You see, the rancher doesn’t try to speak rationally to the cattle when they become startled and threaten to stampede. Harvesting the brutes for meat and milk and leather is what keeps him rich and comfortable, and he does whatever it takes, sans actually speaking to the herd with words and ideas. Ideas and reason and recommendation are beyond the ability of dumb animals, but they do understand electric fences, and barbed wire, barking and snarling dogs, and gunshots. And ultimately the cattle are settled down…made passive. They are no longer a threat, and somehow, they feel more secure. In this way, with respect to the coronavirus and the unsettled simpering masses of human cattle, liberty was summarily sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. And the nation thanked them for it.

But now that thanks is wearing off, and the cattle are getting restless again. The lockdown measures continue, the almost overnight the collapse of the economy and the summary denial of basic rights of freedom of movement, association, and private property has led to skyrocking unemployment, business closures, a deluge of welfare applicants, drug overdose, sucide, domestic abuse, depression, anxiety, panic disorders, heart disease, cancer, child abuse, healthcare industry collapse, restaurant industry collapse, travel and tourism industry collapse, arrant cessation of life saving check-ups and medical procedures, criminality, and educational implosion, to name but a few. Allowing this to continue threatens the power and position of countless politicians. No one in government is safe. Trump’s reelection chances diminish with every passing day, lawsuits are being threatened and filed against government for civil liberty violations, and so to protect their status, politicians are being forced to make overtures towards ending the lockdown.

On the other hand, every epidemiologist and virologist worth a damn is predicting an increase in coronavirus cases and more deaths once people are allowed to reintegrate back into society. This has to do with the nature of such a virus, which must acquire a certain number of hosts before it tapers off and blends into the background haze of common viruses with which man must coexist during the winter months. The lockdown, instead of halting the virus, has simply postponed the inevitable. Politicians are hoping and praying for the miracle of a quick vaccine, and we should all be extremely wary of any vaccine which is rushed into service before the requisite time of 18 months to two years, which is the usual amount of time it takes to produce and research a vaccine for his kind of illness. Any vaccine which appears sooner is almost certainly spurious at best, and possibly dangerous, and is the result of nothing more than profit mongering and political expediency.

So the gonverment has a conundrum on their hands. How do you reintegrate society whilst keeping a virus which MUST inexorably spread from spreading.

The answer is: you don’t.

But if you are the government the answer is to walk the line of contradiction and hope that the American public is too stupid or too scared or too propaganzized (preferably all three) to notice that they are being played for fools. This nonsense about opening the economy “slowly” and “in stages” and “seeing what happens” and maybe “pulling back if we have to” and “opening business only if they comply with CDC regulations” and by color coding counties like they are doing here in Pennsylvania is NOT a medical strategy. I repeat, it is NOT A MEDICAL strategy. It is a political one. And moreover, it is a continuation of the unconstitutional revocation of basic American freedoms that has been occurring for the past seven weeks. The State wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want you breathing a sigh of relief with the idea of “returning to normal”, whilst NOT actually returning to normal becasue “normal” will be, in the words of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, the “new normal”. Which means that the economy and society will reopen but not ACTUALLY reopen. These “strategies” are politcal theater; an illusion, designed to keep you both calm and in a state of fear…to create a dissonance in your emotions and psyche. The State does not care about you, only about itself. And this psy-ops game they are playing now with “reopening the economy” in baby steps is an indulgent massaging of their vanity. They are hoping against all reality that they can open the economy whilst keeping coronavirus cases on the decline. But this cannot be done, and so they must hope that somehow you will belive that that which cannot be done is nevertheless being done by your government. The govenrment for its own sake must open the economy, but for its own sake it ALSO must not. So this is what we get. An opening of the economy which is not really an opening.

Let us open our eyes and see clearly the trinity of viruses at play here: the virus of the State to you and me, the virus of me and you to the State, and the coronavirus to all of us. And let us understand that only one of these viruses is truly a threat to humanity.

END

Coronavirus Conundrum: The futility of ethics by means of mathematics

In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, there is a scene where Spock tells Kirk, who is struggling with an ethical dilemma, that “Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”.

For many years this never sat well with me, for reasons that I could not quite articulate. I was unsettled. I had a suspicion that the claim was not logical at all. I mean, I suppose it was logical mathematically, but still something seemed off.

Years later I realized the specific problem. Spock is confusing ethical consistency with mathematical logic. Ethics are not mathematics, and the logic which governs the premises and conclusions of the two isn’t necessarily interchangeable. Philosophical logic, or what is better termed “rational consistency”, or “reason”, does not assert mathematical logic as axiomatic. This is because mathematics is wholly abstract, where philosophy is meta, incorporating both the abstract and the concrete. Philosophy, of which ethics is a major category, concerns the nature of existence, itself, not merely the abstract measurement and categorization of it.

Since the dilemma facing Kirk is an ethical one, and ethics are not mathematics, Spock’s claim that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one” is entirely meaningless with respect to the problem at hand. It was a pointless and decidedly ILLOGICAL waste of time and breath. Ethically, the needs of the many DO NOT outweigh the needs of the few or the one. This is because there is no rational ethical comparison between “many” and “one” when considering individual human beings. Each person is an utterly singular observer. There is no such thing as deriving an objective “us” or “we” or “many” from an absolutely singular conscious agent. There is SELF, and there is OTHER, where both are singular agents, fundamentally, but the combination of SElf and OTHER into “we” or “us” or “many” is an entirely abstract notion. “We” does not exist, fundamentally, at all. “We” is an abstract concept which combines individuals for purely practical, mutable purposes, never for root ETHICAL ones. Therefore, it is a failure of reason to claim that it is somehow better for, say, one to die than one million. The individual, at the level of SELF, is absolute…he or she IS THE OBSERVER, and he or she is CONSTANT. This is why the individual is so ineluctably necessary to existence and reality. Axiomatically, absent the frame of reference of one’s singular and constant absolute SELF, no claim can be made about anything…nothing known, nothing claimed, nothing verified, and thus nothing can exist, because an existence which cannot be known and thus cannot be valued and thus serve no purpose is a categorically IRRELEVANT existence. And irrelevant existence cannot actually exist, because it can never meaningfully DO anything, including EXIST.

So, that in mind, Spock is really attempting to assert that the needs of the many ABSOLUTES outweigh the needs of a few or one ABSOLUTE. Do you see the paucity of logic here? Spock implies that the death of one person is better than the death of a million, but there is no such thing as a comparison between a single Absolute, and a million Absolutes. “A million absolutes” is no more a quantity of absolutes than a single absolute. There is no AMOUNT of absolute SELF. There is ONLY SELF. Any quantification of individuals then is purely abstract. It is of practical use, but NOT of ethical use. When God says “thou shalt not kill” he doesn’t qualify that command by quantifying it. One death is as equally tragic as a million.

Moving on to the cornonvirus. Today I saw a Vox headline from April 1 which read “The Coronavirus is NOT the FLu. It’s Worse.” I didn’t read the article, because I didn’t have to. The title alone told me that reading the article would be a waste of time, because as far as I was concerned, this isn’t and never has been the issue. Comparisons between the coronavirus and the flu are not the fundamental point anyone should be making.

First of all, the title itself is massively subjective, as “worse” can be defined in multiple ways, and easily manipulated to bolster one’s own personal opinion, no matter what that opinion is. And even if we go with the ostensible meaning of the word—that by “worse” we mean “more dangerous, and with a higher mortality rate”—a month later from when the article was written, incidence testing around the world has proved that the coronavirus is NOT worse than the flu, and may in fact be LESS dangerous.

But who cares about this…this is incidental to anything involving the coronavirus insofar as society and public health is concerned. It’s not about how dangerous the coronavirus is or is not relative to the flu, or any other virus. We live in a context where, under the auspices of State Authority, we exist first and foremost as members of a collective. This makes any crisis, even a pandemic, not an ethical problem, but an examination of probability, and this implies the enumeration of the people. The people become numbers, and these numbers are then plugged into a much larger and more fundamental equation, which is this: What course of action best promotes and preserves the position and power of the State? And this is why government can react so differently to similar crises (eg swine flu vs coronavirus), and why its methods and actions are often so incongruent with emprical data (eg the ongoing lockdown despite evidence that the coronavirus is not a significant threat to the nation). The crises are similar, but the policies which best promote State power can widely vary from situation to situation.

And it is here were we get to the root of it all.

The biggest mistake we who are suspicious and critical of government interference make with respect to interpreting government response to crisis is that we confuse government, which is an institution of object violence, with an ethical entity…and more precisely, a MORALLY ethical entity. It is not. Its only purpose is to compel the collective masses into a particular abstract ideological standard that it alone legitimizes, no matter what appeals are made to individual rights or freedom, etc. Government, itself, not you or me or our neighbors, our businesses, our money, our health, our jobs…nothing matters besides that which affirms the State, and promotes the collective Ideal which legitimizes it (in the case of the US, where I am, this Ideal is the very nebulous “the People”). The government IS the nation…to save the government IS to save YOU and ME, so the “logic” goes. We are the State, the State is us. There is no individual to consider in the equation, and THIS is why the coronavirus is not a true ethical dilemma.

Those who are decrying the government’s draconian measures to control the virus are citing the numbers in an attempt to win the ethical debate. They are claiming that many, many more people will die in the long run from the severe economic catastrophe that the unconstitutional lockdown orders are inflicting. I, myself, have asserted this, and will continue to do so. After all the truth is the truth—if you look at the data gathered by highly competent and established epidemiologists and virologists there is simply no way a rational person can conclude that this virus is paticularly dangerous for the VAST majority of human beings, And if you look at the economic data, there is no way a rational person can deny that the measures taken to control the pandemic will kill many more people than the virus ever will. However, as this is not a specifically ethical argument, it will fail thus when employed as one. ETHICALLY, those who would rather doom a billion people via the government’s orders to lockdown society in order to save a few thousand people who might otherwise die from the virus are NOT wrong. It is NOT ETHICALLY (specifically, it is not not morally) wrong to suggest that the smaller number of lives saved by government are EQUALLY and possibly MORE important than the billions who will be destroyed by the ongoing lockdown. Why? Because, as I said, this is NOT an ethical dillema. You cannot make an ethical comparison of the importance of one life over another, so to persist in the fallacious idea that you can possess moral and rational superiority by simply appealing to the math is ludicrous. IF the government wants to kill a billion in order to save a few thousand, an ethical argument about the value of this many lives versus that many is NOT an effective argument because the situational context has nothing to do with the value of individual life.

But, you might say, why not then simply appeal to the mathematical logic? You might say that it doesn’t make sense, numerically, for the governemnt to doom a billion to save a few thousand. Surely it is in the best interest of the State to rule over many than a few, right?

The answer, as I’m sure you’ve already guessed, is: not necessarily. It might, but it might not. The bottom line is that IF the State feels that it is in its best interest to destroy the many in order to save the few then this is the course of action it WILL pursue. If you think that the power and position of those in goverment are not the supreme consideration in dealing with any and all issues related to a nation, be it a pandemic or any other thing, then you simply do not understand the true and root nature of the State and the nature of your position under its authority. And there is no ethical argument you can bring to bear which will alter the course of government action. You can quote numbers all day long, and conflate mathematics with ethics all day long, but it will do you no good. It is an exercise in futility and will only serve to exasperate, frustrate, and disappoint you. The only way you will ever get the State to change its course is to somehow convince it, or hope that it will at some point be convinced, that it is in ITS, not YOUR, best interest to choose a different direction.

And here we DO actually get a glimps of the ethics of government. What is “good” for the State is technically an ethical question. Yet we must make a distinction between MORAL ethics and LEGAL ethics. In this article, for semantic’s sake, I used “ethical” as a synonym for “moral”, which I’m sure you understood. After all, any discussion of ethics as it involves human beings may typically be seen as a discussion of morality. But moral ethics are not the same as legal ethics, and I have several articles on this blog where I deal specifically with the difference, so I will not do that here. The point I want to make is that in order to convince the government to change its course, one must convince it that such a change is first and foremost GOOD for the STATE. What is good for the person, for you and me, for the individual, for the human being, is entirely irrelevant, and will never prove efficacious in persuading the government to do anything.

END

The Coronavirus Test, Our Failure, Plausible Deniability, and the Quarantine to Nowhere

Coronavirus was a test…figuratively or literally, it doesn’t matter. How far will the people go to protect their economic and civil liberties; their “guaranteed” Constitutional rights? Covid-19 taught the ruling classes that the people won’t go far at all. In fact, they will scarcely leave their homes. At the slightest whiff of a disruption to their mundane and predictable status quo existence, and under the influence of the rank panic merchants in the media, a relatively harmless virus, with fatality numbers utterly dwarfed by the common flu after five/six months, can cow the people into surrendering their financial future, mortgage the lives of their children, shutter their businesses which they have spent untold amounts of time and energy building, hoard food and toilet paper even absent any kind of supply shortage, accept summary termination of employment, accept trillions of government pork spending, slavishly suffer legal limitations to their freedom of movement and association (a woman in York, PA was recently fined for simply going for a drive) and accept the precedent which says that the government can define a crises and then immediately seize complete control of the economy and society almost literally overnight.

Like with the Patriot Act after 911, the powers and rights we have surrendered to the state—for this—are gone for good.

But at least you feel safe behind your mask and gloves.

Right now we are in the holding pattern of plausible deniability. What I mean is that the Covid-19 scare is not the apocalypse we were told (and are being told even now) it was, but the government and its healthcare advisor yes-men have painted themselves into a corner, and we will be stuck in the “quarantine to nowhere” until they can figure a way out. You see, the powers-that-be, based on a virus of which they knew little to nothing about, and acting out of political expediency and under pressure from media and social media panic merchants and conspiracy theorists (I do NOT blame the government solely for this mess), have damaged this nation in ways that are so unfathomably destructive to the very core of our republic and all upon which it is founded, to the point that it shall never recover, and the death and misery reaped will outweigh anything the coronavirus could do in a million years, that they cannot simply admit they were wrong and throw open society and the economy with a shrug and a “oops, sorry about that”. They fear that, should they do this, in a week once the exuberance wears off, they will face many uncomfortable questions and someone will be on the hook for explaining just how the people tasked with competently and intelligently governing the world’s only remaining superpower could manage to so royally fuck it up almost literally overnight.

What this means is that will will all toil in our locked-down glove, mask, and toilet paper fortresses until they can figure out a way to give themselves an out—a way that can make it look like what is happening now, despite all rational evidence to the contrary, was exactly the right move. They need a plausible way to disguise their catastrophic failure. My guess is that in the next week or so we will hear about some promising new drug which is knocking out the virus left and right, and THAT is why we can now safely reopen the nation, and not because the virus isn’t actually that dangerous after all. It may be some spin about how the quarantine efforts really stemmed the flow of infection and got the numbers down to manageable levels, or a combination of these two “explanations”. But plausible deniability, not a cure, or more ventilators, or more healthcare workers, or more data, is the hold up now.

Oh, and by the way, once this is all over, you can expect terms like “lockdown” and “stay-at-home orders” and “enforced quarantine” to completely disappear from all national media conversation about the coronavirus. That little bit of overt despotism speak is not going to be good for public relations.

And public relations is what it’s all about, after all.

The Law is at War with You (Part 3, Conclusion)

At the beginning of this article series, I opened with the question: Without the law what is to prevent someone from committing evil action X should they have the opportunity; and what then is the consequence?

From this question, often asked by apologists for legal ethics (those who assume that Coercive Authority, i.e. the State, is utterly necessary for human ethics to exist), two things can be assumed beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the law is not necessary to declare moral value—indeed, that moral value must be known before the law exists (e.g. law is to prevent evil action X, an action of which its moral evil warrants the creation-intervention of law). And second, that evil has no negative consequence without law.

The idea that there is no consequence for immoral action absent law presents us with a contradiction; this contradiction is “resolved” by rejecting morality entirely, and replacing it with legality. Here is the contradiction: by asserting that there is no negative consequence for immoral action, an immoral action can no longer be defined as immoral. You see, in ethics, it is axiomatic that action and consequence are corollary, yet the law “splits” this corollary by making action a function of moral ethics and consequence a function of legal ethics. But morality and legality are two completely distinct ethical systems, each with its own very specific premises and corollaries and conclusions, and, most importantly, its own metaphysical foundation. (Morality is based upon will and choice, its metaphysics are individualist; legality is based upon authority and coercive force, its metaphysics are collectivist). They simply cannot be merged/integrated in any rational or efficacious way. So what happens is that morality by default becomes merely propagandistic conveyance for the implementation of legality, whereupon morality is discarded by the Authority (ruling class) and replaced with legality as the author and arbiter of the ethical value of both action and consequence. And this is done quite naturally, and is not necessarily consciously conceived by those arguing for the State and the Rule of Law or the ruling class. For as soon as we assume and accept that consequence must be a function of the law, then it becomes impossible to determine the ethical value of an action without also appealing to the law; and this is due to the inherent mutual exclusivity between legal ethics and moral ethics. This is the nature of ethics.

All of this being the case, in response to the question at the top of this article, we are forced to reply as follows:

Wihout law, why should we think that evil action X is in fact evil? In other words, how do we know that action X, or engaging in action X, is a bad thing?

The answer is of course that we do not; we cannot. Because by asking the question we necessarily concede that legality, not morality, is the only relevant and possible ethical system. Outside of the law, there is no ethic. Any action outside the law cannot by definition be called illegal, and thus it cannot be called unethical, and thus it cannot be called “bad”. The law, in accordance with the logical rules of ethics, is both prescriptive and proscriptive. It dictates which actions are good or bad (or said another way, it dictates the goodness or badness value of a given action) and it dicatates the consequences for actions. The law declares what you must do and what you must not (which is fundamentally oxymoronic, because one cannot do a “not”….so the law fundamentally dicates all behavior at root). And this is why law has nothing at all to do with choice and will. Human action is fundametally driven by individual will. But will is not recogniznzed by law, which by nature is coercive, not cooperative, which is why as time goes by, the law—the State, the Ruling Class—becomes more and more oppressive; it smothers humanity, it does not, and cannot, free it. The nature of the law is to dictate, not emancipate. Law rejects human choice and will, it does not provide some kind of cohesive and moral context for them. The “freeing power of democratic law” is just lie you have been told to make you more amenable to the whims of the ruling class, nothing more. You are coerced by very persuasive, euphonious, idealistic indoctrination, which is much cheaper and more profitable than state terrorism, gulags, guillotines, death squads, and gas chambers, and less messy as well. The chattel bear more service and substance if they walk willingly to their cages and pastures than if they struggle or try to run away. Though terror, gulags, guillotines, death squads, and gas chambers, or some manifestation thereof, will eventually appear no matter how ostensibly democratic a system is…and there are reasons for this, but they are a subject for another article.

Finally, I will end with this:

The law does not provide a context for the implementation of efficacious morality. Law is, according to the ethics of morality, entirely opposed to moral behavior.

In other words, the law is categorically immoral.

END

The Law is at War with You (Part 2)

In part one of this essay series, I concluded with the declaration that the law is not a means of enforcing moral ethics, or a conveyance of them, but is in fact a replacement of them. And it is on this point that I would like to elaborate.

Most of us assume, because we are indoctrinated to do so from our very first breath, that the law, as a tool of moral ethics, has to do with willful action and consequence. That is, if your willful action is to break the law, your consequence is punishment under the law. But this is not actually so. When dealing in legality, we are inexorably and necessarily simultaneously dealing in Authority. The law and the authority to enforce the law are indeed corollary…without an Authority to force compliance and punishment according to the law, then the law cannot be manifest. Law, absent authority, in other words, has no consequence…and therefore its commands have no substance, and therefore the law does not exist in any practical sense. Said another way, once people have a choice as to whether or not they will obey the law, then there is no law. The very nature of law is to disregard choice entirely…that’s the whole point. If someone chooses to disobey, then the law shall punish them. That’s how the whole thing works. One’s choice to disobey the law does not get them out from under it…not at all. It merely invites punishment according to the law. The law does not recognize your choice as legitimate, and that is why you are punished according to the law when you disobey it. If your choice was recognized as legitimate by law, then there would be no punishment for disobedience. Punishment exists in legal ethics precisely as a means to nullify choice, not to affirm it. Before your choice can result in a consequence which fundamentally satisfies that choice, the law steps in to punish you. Instead of a natural consequence to your exercise of individual will, you will relinquish your money to the State, or suffer garnished wages, or a jail cell, or a firing squad, a noose, guillotine, cross, electric chair, needle…etc.. At the very least, you spend your days “on the run” and in hiding. In any case, the point is that the law steps in long before any true, natural consequence of your free choice can ever manifest.

But of course this is not what most of us suppose…we are taught that punishment (and also reward) is a consequence of choice. If the law punishes the “evildoer” then it is because he is simply “reaping what he sows”. If he had not chosen to disobey, then he would not have been punished. However, this is not in reality how law works. Obedience, by definition, has nothing to do with choice, yet it has everything to do with law. One does not choose to obey, for that is a contradiction in terms. One obeys legal commands, or else one is punished. The commands are dictated by the Authority; the punishment is likewise and equally dictated by the Authority. Both the commands of the law and the punishment for disobedience of the law are equal manifestations of the Authority. They are One, and man is obligated to it. He will either obey, regardless of what he wants, or he will be punished, regardless of what he wants. Said another way: He will either obey, regardless of what he’d rather choose, or he will be punished, regardless of what he’d rather choose. The command to “obey or else” hasn’t the least bit to to with individual will, and thus hasn’t the least to do with choice. The law is dictated TO man; it is not a product of his will, then, but of the will (and whim) of the Authority, which is predicated upon a collective Ideal into which humanity is to be forced, not Individual agency exercised as choice. Man is born into law—he belongs to it, NOT vice versa. And law is a giant rock which is falling on his head; he may move out from under it, but only by stepping off a cliff and onto the jagged rocks below. In this situation, the choice he makes leads to the exact same conclusion, having nothing fundamentally to do with him or his choice at all. And that’s the whole idea. That’s LAW.

From this, a fundamental truth now becomes clear, where before it was hidden and obscured by layers and layers of misunderstanding, disinformation, misinformation, rationally bankrupt philosophy, and sadistic self-loathing tradition: law doesn’t have anything to do with individual action and consequence. At all. Your actions are compelled, thus denying your will, which denies your mind, which denies your singular consciousness (your awareness of Self), which denies your root individual nature, which denies your existence entirely. Manifestations of individuality, like choice (true, objective freedom) are thus ipso facto illegal…which simply means that they not recognized as existentially legitimate and natural. Law is philosophically collectivist, not Individualist. It compels man against his will by collectivizing him and then directing and defining the collective whole into Its legal obligation to serve the Authority (ruling class). And it compels man necessarily against his will because it does not recognize his will, because it does not recognize his individuality. The law views man’s existence as fundamentally collective, thus making man a function of an Idealized reality, not a rational reality. The Ideal is an abstract, the collective thus likewise an abstract, the collective becomes an ironic monolithic entity, and man the individual is thus forced to live in this dream-reality which the State (the Authority/ruling class) intends to make manifest by coercive FORCE, and the law serves as the blueprint and ethical exuse for the resultant bloodshed. This is how the State excuses its mass murder of millions of men and women on the battlefields of governemnt wars and other places whilst simultaneously condemning every random “lawbreaker”—a tax avoider, a drug dealer, a man operating a barber shop without a business license—as a moral villain to be ridiculed as an affront to human prosperity and progress.

The law, my friends, is not a natural context for action and consequence, as if it is merely an expression of object and endemic human free agency, where we all just get together and happily agree to play by the rules. Without a ruling class, there are no legal rules! Those rules we all followed as kids in our games of backyard sports, or tag, or pretend play, these are not law! They are rules without the ruler…which makes them the opposite of law: cooperation based upon an arrant individual willingness to be part of the game, without threat of punishment, nor any means to effect punishment for withdrawing or choosing not to play, save the loss of maybe a little face, or at worst separation from that particular group of individuals merely due to disparate individual interests, upon which another group may be joined, or not.

This is voluntarism, not collectivism. It is not the State, it is Stateless.  It is not legality, it is morality. It is not obligation to Authority, it is the freedom to act morally.

END part 2

The Law is at War with You (Part 1)

If the question is “Without the law what is to prevent or dissuade someone from (committing this or that evil action) should they have the opportunity and should they feel like it; and what then is the consequence?”  …yes, if this is the ethical question with respect to the law, and it is, then we can argue that the law is not necessary to determine the moral value of the action in question. Indeed, we can argue that to even ask the question in the first place is to admit that moral judgement must already have been rendered upon the action. So we know that by the very (ostensible) point of the law in the first place—to dissuade men from and to punish men for evil actions—that law itself has nothing to do with how and why actions are morally valued. In other words, if an action can be valued as “good” or “bad” outside the law, and indeed this value is an a priori premise of the law, then it can be concluded that the law has nothing at all fundamentally to do with moral ethics. And this is very important. Because what this means is that the law can neither fundamentally promotes moral action nor provides for moral consequence.

Let me explain.

Moral ethics are often the ostensible reason why men feel the need to apply law in defense of morality, but those who are committed to law as a conveyance of morality rarely, if ever, claim that law is the means by which morality is defined. And this makes sense, as the very definition of ethics as a bonafide philosophical category must include both action and consequence of  action—these are corollary. In other words, even men who are comitted to law as a means to implement morality accept that the morality of both actions and consequences are wholly defined and understood apart from the law. Said another way, even those who promote the law as a defense of morality tacitly admit that morality is a fully-formed, complete, self-sustaining/self-contained, comprehensive ethical system. It already describes what is good and bad, and therefore it necessarily describes the consequences of good and bad actions, and how to promote the former and prevent the other. The moral value of an action and the corollary moral value of its consequence necessarily imply the moral means of defending and promoting morality. Moral ethics don’t actually need the law. At all.

Which begs the question: why do we have law then?

I’ll get to that. But I suspect you already know/have figured it out.

Law is instituted in defense of morality only after moral actions and consequences have already been observed, defined, and understood. Ergo: “We must have law in order to prevent/punish people from/for doing this or that BAD thing”. That is, law is seen to be a tool of moral ethics. But here’s the problem: it has nothing actually to do with moral ethics…and this is the grand ethical irony. The Ethics of Morality already provide the utility for which the law is said to be necessary. In other words, in any true, legitimate ethical system—of which morality is indeed the only rationally consistent example—the prevention of and consequence for unethical action is endemic to the system. Morality provides for its own conveyances of prevention and consequence. It does not need the law…the law, as far as moral ethics goes, is utterly superfluous. Morality already endemically declares that “if thou do X then thou shall necessarily reap Y”. The future prevention of negative moral action X is the example/experience of reaping of the necessary corollary moral negative consequences of Y…both of which are defined and understood according to morality, not according to the law.

Which brings us to the next point in this essay series: The law then, by deduction of relatively simple logic, is not a tool of morality but a replacement of it. It does not save or protect the innocent, it wrecks the distinction between the morally innocent and the morally guilty, and places the declaration of ethical value squarely in the hands and the whims of a subjective ruling class (Governing Authority…the State). The establishment of a ruling class  is, as a fundamental premise, is the deposing of morality and the institution of legality in its place. And this is necessarily the death of humanity, not the salvation of it.

END part one

Why Our Government Can’t See Any of Us

If my fundamental social context is one where I operate as a function of what someone else will allow—that is, existence under the auspices of ruling authority (legal ethics, which is forced compliance)—then I can never really know who I am. Because what I am at root is a function of what I think, and what I think is corollary to what I desire, or will, which is corollary to what I choose. But if my social context is fundamentally one of forced compliance, and my choices fundamentally a function of what the Authority will allow, then choice is only relative, and my desire and therefore my thought, my mind, is never really of me. It’s of the Authority which seeks to exist through me, and in spite of the real me.

Within such a context, any claim of any citizen that they would prefer “more freedom” is merely a claim that they would prefer to be allowed more choice…but “allowed choice” is a fundamental contradiction in terms. He who wields the power to allow me to choose is he who is at root utterly in control of my choices, which puts him in practical control of my will and thus my mind and thus my SELF…in which case there is no actual me at all.  So “more freedom” here is just an iteration of authority over me—the power to compel me against my will. There is no such thing as freedom within the context of ruling authority (the State/Government). It’s an illusion at best; but mostly it’s just a bromide.

Under the umbrella of ruling authority where my will is only “allowed” to be expressed, I am functioning merely as an expression of the ruler’s power to compel. Therefore, I, my SELF, have no actual value to the social equation. I’m a pawn in the plans of the ruling class, period, full stop. I don’t exist to them, and never did. We recoil at the thought of  a handful of people being shot to death in a movie theater by a psychopathic teenager, calling it a “senseless slaughter”, but we sing songs of heroism and tribute to and get all teary-eyed and sentimental about the thousands slaughtered in the span of minutes on the battlefields of government wars. This is because we are taught that in the context of doing things for “our country”, which fundamentally can only mean the State, which fundamentally means the ruling class, there is no such thing as an individual. And you cannot “senselessly slaughter” people who don’t actually exist. Death by the thousands and millions in defense of the collective ruling class is glorious; death by the handful via one acting “illegally” is a pointless tragedy.

Let us wake from our cognitive dissonance.

END

“‘What is Government?’ Answered in One Paragraph”

What is government? Well, it’s quite simple.

A group of violent people (aspiring ruling class) threaten the productive people with violence and take their property, then use some of the property to bribe the unproductive in exchange for greater power by which they further exploit the productive. Then the children of both the unproductive and the productive are indoctrinated into thinking that this arrangement mis a sociological virtue and a moral necessity. This goes on until the transfer of wealth from the productive to the ruling class (with the unproductive being the buffer between the ruling class and those they exploit…a combination of hired thugs and cannon fodder, to put it bluntly) must rely upon unsustainable debt, arrant political corruption, kangaroo courts and show trials, unfettered lower class immigration, and the distractions of circuses and sideshows and endless war, shortly after which the ruling class abandons the disaster and moves on to do it again somewhere else.

The end.