Evolve Now!
A Libertarian’s Perspective
by
Virgil H. Castleberry
SMASHWORDS EDITION
* * * * *
PUBLISHED BY:
Virgil H. Castleberry on Smashwords
Evolve Now!
A Libertarian’s Perspective
Copyright © 2011 by Virgil H. Castleberry
Cover Photo: Copyright © 2011 by Virgil H. Castleberry
Relationship Pyramid: Copyright © 2011 by Virgil H. Castleberry
Smashwords Edition License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author's work.
For permission to reprint portions of this book please contact the author through his profile page at smashwords.com.
For “fair use” referencing in other works, simply reference this edition in your work.
* * * * *
Dedication
To Richard Marsella, who never told me what to think, only to think for myself...
To Mark Helprin for writing “Digital Barbarism, A Writer's Manifesto”1.
To L. E. Modesitt , Jr. for his wonderful works “The Parafaith War”2 and “The Ethos Effect”3.
To my wife, Amy, who puts up with my moods and tangential thinking.
These fine folks prodded my thinking; they may, or may not, agree with my thoughts...
Table of Contents
Appendix I: God and the Universe
Appendix II: Relationship Pyramid
Appendix III: Dimensions and Directions
Foreword
Human evolution is an ongoing process.
Few people in modern times think of evolution in these terms. Most people, if they think of evolution at all, think of it as “something” that happened over millions of years, and culminated in what we are today.
Unfortunately, this attitude ignores what evolution truly is, and this view of completed human evolution leads to ignoring the consequences of today's decisions and actions.
It is vitally important, as beings who can choose our path into the future, that we look at life in the light of long term evolution.
Evolution is brought about by a number of environmental issues that include breeding, food supplies, water availability, air quality, and societal pressures.
These issues affect both our physical and mental evolution. Realizing this, we must ask where evolution will take us, with water that is contaminated with fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that is used for drinking and to raise crops, livestock, and fish, meat filled with hormones and antibiotics, along with a diet of genetically modified vegetables designed for marketable growth, rather than nutritional value, and polluted air to breathe.
These changes to our environment result in modifications to our cells and to our DNA. More alarming is the changes that these poisons and antibiotics make in the symbiotic relationships we have with other organisms, such as intestinal flora, and in our reduced ability to function correctly.
When we combine large quantities of fat and cholesterol laden fast foods with an environment that causes our organs to function sub-par, and a lack of exercise, is it any wonder that arteries are hardening, and cholesterol is building up, among a plethora of other issues? And the answer to all of this is another pill to take?
What are we going to become, if we continue down this path?
Much has been written for the public on the need for natural foods, though little has been said about how this affects physical evolution. We may deal with that specifically in some later writing, but this book is an attempt to deal with the mental and emotional bonds, brought about by our society, that keep us from evolving into the species we should become, with food only mentioned due to its affect on our mental state.
Those of the human race, who would rather not become a dead-end evolutionary path, must break these bonds and progress past what is considered normal for today. With that in mind, please read on, with the understanding that the societal problems we discuss do not affect everyone, but are general trends that have developed, and if left unchecked, will affect a larger percentage of humanity with each passing generation.
The ideas in this book are my own thoughts on various subjects; the work contains descriptions of what I see as disadvantageous in our society, along with some ideas on how our society should be structured. All of this comes from pondering why things are the way they are; my ruminations, as it is.
No one denies that we have a society that is ailing; it is the causes and the treatments that are in question. Common sense shows the path in many circumstances; history tells us even more. The failure of various societal configurations in our country, and in others, can help us navigate this time of potential growth; politicians and leaders who address only the symptoms, rather than the causes, take us further down the path to stagnation and destruction. The short term fixes used today will eventually turn us back to subsistence living, rather than allowing us to progress towards our potential as a species.
Unfortunately, all forms of government tend towards degradation or social entropy; when a society spins out of control many people push for stability (another name for security), rather than putting the energy into the system that will allow for growth. As we will discuss, security is that which stifles growth and evolution; the effects of this ever-tightening control are the societal issues of today.
Some who purchase this book may find that they have grown past what is written; know that you are not alone in your thoughts.
To contact me, or to comment on this book, please see my author’s profile at smashwords.com.
We must act before it is too late; with that in mind, please read on.
If the old axiom is correct, humans can move forward or die...
If we are not moving forward, we are either attempting to sit still, or maintain the statu quo4, or we are regressing; either of these two choices is a form of death. Stagnation and regression will lead to the death of that which makes us human.
The natural desire is to move forward; to work against the odds, to stand up and be counted, to better ourselves. This self-preservation is “coded” into us from millions of years of survival of the fittest; this is evolution. It is only in our relatively modern times that we see so many who work against their own personal and species survival, and still survive and even thrive; this is devolution.
For the purposes of this writing we will define evolution as that which brings about positive growth, both personal and societal, with some small view of our distant past. Viewing evolution in this manner removes the ambiguities of a dimly seen past that is much argued, and focuses us on the present and future, where discourse is on a much firmer footing.
Evolution, or positive growth, is that which enhances the human as both an individual and as a member of their chosen society (and all societies are chosen, if by nothing more than inaction). As we will discuss later, the chosen evolutionary path may be different based on the precepts of a society, such as democratic or technocratic, but only those paths that lead to life under one's own control, whether that control be biological or technical, constitute growth in a positive direction, or evolution. That one group may disagree with the direction of evolution does not mean that the other group's direction is incorrect, but that it is only incorrect for the dissenting individuals; it must also be said that not every direction is positive, and the dissenters may be quite correct in the belief that a particular direction will lead to a “dead end”. Evolution has a near perfect, if somewhat slow, method of dealing with faulty branches of advancement, that being “natural selection”.
Evolution, and devolution for that matter, can be viewed as both cause and effect; while situations that we encounter may bring about positive or negative growth as an effect, so the process of evolving, or devolving, brings about its own set of effects to both individuals and to their societies; this cascade effect is a form of social entropy in the strictest definition, that being that the society has come to rest after occupying every possible point in which it can exist, given its structure and energy. For example, the rude and crass behavior that has become accepted as “normal” by our society shows the devolution in individuals that has been brought about by a lack of education, allowing said humans to become more like their prehistoric ancestors than a civilized human being; once there are enough devolved humans in a society to form a critical mass, the society begins to move downwards to the level of the individuals. In addition, the constant collisions between the elements of the society will spread the effects, until no part is left untouched by this social miasma.
When this devolved group of people in a society come to feel that their life, and even life in general, is of little value, or that they are hopelessly trapped in circumstances beyond their control, said society will implode, barring extremely strong leadership. Typically the type of leadership that can harness these shambles of humanity are despots, whether physically, mentally, or both, and if they have not actively worked to create the implosion of society, have, at the very least, seen it coming in time to plan and act accordingly, with the intent to exploit, while doing nothing to alleviate the situation. In fact, they would choose to do nothing, as a population of automatons and mental zombies is in their best interests.
Along with a complacent and pliant population, despots, whether physical, mental, or both, must have a way to force the population into the desired acts that bring power and riches to the despot.
Despots must use the “carrot and stick” method or rewarding the behavior that they desire while punishing the behavior that will hinder and reduce the implementation of their goals. To achieve these goals of power and/or wealth, a despot must accomplish several things:
-Convince the population that they are powerless to defend themselves unless they accept aid from the controlling organization.
-Convince the population that they cannot provide for themselves and their loved ones without aid from the controlling organization.
-Convince the population that acting in the best interests of the society should always out-weigh acting for one's own good.
-Convince the population that success is measured in money (regardless of how it is obtained) and consumer goods.
-Make all citizens dependent on the controlling organization for a dwelling, through imminent domain, loan subsidizing, subsidized housing, and public housing.
-Reduce the education of the average person, while increasing their training.
-Provide a level of entertainment for the masses that excludes the time or need to think on their own and of their situation.
-Create a legal system so complex that the average citizen must employ legalists for the smallest issues; create fear through a high level of uncertainty of compliance with the law.
-Create a tax code so complex that only specialists understand it, and the population abides by it due to misunderstanding its purpose, or by fear of non-compliance.
-Control and regulate business and profits.
-Control the general population by instilling fear of a penal system that provides disproportional punishment for smaller infractions, while giving every benefit to the worst offenders.
-Use media control to blur the lines between reality and fiction to ensure that no one knows the truth about anything in the society, making it easy to lie about everything.
What, you may ask, does this have to do with evolution?
Despots are the enemy of societal evolution. When the average person thinks of a despot, someone such as Idi Amin or Pol Pot will come to mind. These are examples of physical despots, or tyrants, during our modern age.
However, if a person, or group of persons, has total control over your life by influencing your mind, rather than forcing you to move across country or work in a rice paddy, does that make them any less of a despot? Are you any less of a slave?
Societies evolve as their populations evolve: physically, mentally, or both. Here we are concerned with the evolution of the human mind, how this will alter our societies, and how to bring about that alteration.
Only humans who are free to think, act on their own thoughts, and grow accordingly, will be able to evolve. The issues listed above, which may seem very familiar to you, even if you live in a “free” country, limit your ability to think and to grow. This reduced personal growth results in a stagnant society, which is the desire of a despot. The despot desires total control of the population, thereby giving himself the greatest power. To achieve this, they must stop all forward progress and create a consumer oriented society. Aldus Huxley5 was prescient in his vision of a controlled, consumer world.
When the Constitution of the United States was framed, the authors considered the rights enshrined in the document to be the minimum rights to be granted to citizens, and expected the future to be a time when citizens of the United States were the freest people on earth, not because they were granted many rights, but because they were granted by God (inalienable), rather than the government, all rights, with government restrictions on only a few rights to preserve the tranquility of the nation and the rights of their fellow man.
The highest level of governance was to be at the lowest level of society, while the highest level of government had the least say over a citizen’s life and happiness. A simple move from one county or parish to the next could result in a feeling of freedom for an individual, as laws and expected conduct changed across a patchwork of local regulations based on the majority's desire in that local area. If this small move does not suffice to bring the freedom that you need, simply load your belongings into your covered wagon, or SUV, and head out across the states until you come to an area that meets with your approval, and set up housekeeping, or create a new community based on your ideals; such was much of the settling of the old West.
This patchwork of local laws, based on local mores, provided a rich and diverse social and mental landscape, that could accommodate all who would come later.
With the desire of the Federal Government to eliminate this patchwork of local laws, and bring higher and higher levels of order to our society, the landscape changed from that of a highly complex kaleidoscope to something along the lines of a cheap wallpaper with a close repetitive design, with the only diversity being that of printing errors in the roll.
With the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 1700's (debated as to mid or late century) technology has outpaced our ability to keep pace with the changes. Kudos to Alvin Toffler for recognizing this, and coining the phrase “Future Shock”6; he may be even more of a genius than we already think he is, but only time will tell.
Along with these shocking changes, comes the ability to refine the control that a few have over the many. A simple illustration is communications. As the ability to monitor everyone's communications grows, it is a given that our government will find new and creative reasons to demand the right to perform that monitoring, and, if the right is denied, will secretly do so anyway. I wonder how many written letters in the 1800's, sent from one lonely lover to another, were opened and read, and how many emails or cell phone calls from one lonely lover to another are intercepted. Percentage-wise, I suspect there has been an increase in interceptions that keeps pace with the increases in technology. But more on technology later…
The point here is that mental, emotional, and societal evolution cannot take place under a despot or tyrant, and that the entire world is currently under the control of one or more types of despots. Either you live in a country run by a person controlling your physical being, or you live in “free” country where you are told where to go, what to wear, which vehicle to drive, what food to eat, what to believe, how to raise your children, ad infinitum...
Immediately many reading this will argue that they are not that controlled; really? Try building your own electric vehicle and using it on the roads. Try farming using your own seeds, saved from the last year's crop. See how fast you are labeled a weirdo if you decide to practice your own religion or one that is outside of the group of “normal” forms of worship. Try teaching your children based on a curriculum that you design instead of one from an approved home-schooling system, or teaching them anything outside of their curriculum if they are in public school.
Frankly, I am surprised that anyone that grew up during the American Great Depression accomplished anything worthwhile in life, what with the diet that did not conform to the Minimum USRDA, having to wear hand-me-downs, walking to school, and being too poor to own the newest and most fashionable doo-dad of the day. If you believe the government line, and the blathering of today's social workers, poor people during the Great Depression should have all been at the very least, bums and at most, criminals, due to privation (extreme poverty resulting in not having what is considered necessary for life, such as food, water, clothing, etc.). What nonsense, yet this mindset is the current basis of our great society.
We cannot evolve under this type of control. There is no freedom, and where there is no freedom, there is no growth. We and our society are “root-bound” in our decorative planters, and the only freedom allowed in our great American society is the size and aesthetics of the planter; the very item that binds us. Or put another way, allowing a prisoner to choose from a list of state approved decorating choices for his prison cell is not the same as freedom.
I am a fan of a number of types of popular culture, and one of my favorite lines comes from the “Watchmen”7 movie, where Dan Dreiberg (Night Owl) asks “But the country's disintegrating. What's happened to America? What's happened to the American dream?” Edward Blake (The Comedian) replies “It came true. You're looking at it.” So very true; the American Dream was supposed to be a dream; with hard work and good decisions it might come true. To force it to come true for everyone required the mortgaging of our souls.
For those who can think, and can act on their thoughts; for those with the intestinal fortitude to stand by their convictions, as their own person, and to grow to their full potential (I speak of their potential ability to think, not play professional sports or make money); for those who wish to evolve; the path, though over-grown and seldom used, is still there to follow.
Will everyone who is given the opportunity to grow, do so? No, and that must be discussed in this chapter, before moving on to issues less general.
I suspect that the vast majority of people living in the world today will never be able to rise above what they have been taught, and the habits that they have developed, even if they do realize the need to evolve. There will be a few who may reach their evolutionary potential, but most will not. They may, however, allow their children, and their children's children, to have the freedom to evolve.
Evolution is not a straight line from where we are, to where we can be, any more than it was a straight line from a one celled organism to a human. I know many don't believe in physical evolution, but regardless of religious beliefs, the evidence of physical evolution exists, in recorded history, for many species in ways that cannot be denied, and evolution in pre-history can be extrapolated, except by those who steadfastly refuse to look at facts. In the case of Christianity, for example, today's beliefs and worship is so far removed from that of the time of the Apostles, or the early Church, as to be practically unrecognizable by the original adherents. As times changed passages were added to the Christian Bible by Popes and others “in touch with God” and the meanings of many passages have changed, in public awareness, as scientific evidence grew. Yet this same group, in the modern day, steadfastly refuses to include evolution in their teachings, preferring to stick with a version of creation that was a Hebrew story used to teach children about God and life. Again, more on this in later chapters...
Evolutionary charts look more like a spreading tree than a bamboo cane. For every viable species, there are any number that do not make the cut. Many of the pre-Homo sapien fossils are not our forebears, but our cousins from a line that would not become Homo sapiens, and found themselves on a dead-end evolutionary path.
Considering this, it may be that we who have created technology, and use it so freely, are actually on a dead-end path that will result in the earth being inherited by the Aboriginals of Australia, who stayed in touch with the Earth and never used more than needed to survive. Unless, of course, the Australian government continues on its path of “civilizing” the Aboriginals, which so far has resulted in a culture that is addicted to alcohol, tobacco, pornography, and child abuse. At what point do the liberal social workers realize that they have destroyed a viable culture, that has existed for thousands of years, and have replaced it with the worst possible culture? At some point they should admit that they made a mistake (an understatement) and leave any additional Aboriginals to their own devices. I am sure that the Aboriginals living in the government villages understand the expression that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
But, if we suppose, as we are wont to do, that our evolutionary branch is going to become something other than a dead-end evolutionary path, what must we do? Is physical evolution going to continue? Possibly; if enough people spend enough time in their “gaming chairs”, only produce offspring with other gamers, and their offspring only sit in chairs and never exercise, it is possible that a group will diverge from the current Homo-sapiens that has lower bone density, larger bladders and bowels, a physical need for caffeine, and, eventually, eyesight evolved for a computer screen and fingers evolved for a keyboard, mouse, and gaming controller.
If this occurs, it will be evolution by choice, not by natural selection. There is some chance that a natural selection event will occur, such as a meteor striking earth, or a solar flare that changes the environment, but the point of intelligence is to apply technology (tools of any sort that accomplish any purpose for us) to ensure our survival, as a species (not to play games), in as many events as it is possible to affect. As technology grows, so should the ability to protect ourselves, barring the tendency in most humans to reduce their intelligence and abilities through the misapplication of said technologies. Technology does not, and cannot, abrogate the need for natural selection on the individual level. A country full of stupid voters will result in stupid laws.
All species that survive natural selection reach a point where their intelligence is capable of allowing them to decide their own evolutionary path. Human Beings are at that point, and have been for several hundred years. Why are we not moving forward? Quite simply put, a few have decided that it is better to enslave the masses, through emotional manipulation, and use the masses for their own power, to ensure that they have the best in life, and to satisfy their megalomania. Even though we are not yet discussing society, it is best that I say at this point, lest there be confusion, that a person who honestly earns wealth commits no social sin. Those who will use the items in the previous list of controls to gain power and wealth are megalomaniacs and should be institutionalized for the safety of our society.
Today's masses are not free to evolve, and breaking these chains of slavery will be very hard, if not impossible for many. Some will, and, hopefully, those and others will ensure that their children are not so enslaved. But to do this, one must recognize the slavery, the whip, the master, and the path out of slavery. Hence this book.
Just as there are humans and chimpanzees, the human race has the potential to split into various evolved groups. One group may evolve to embrace the natural world, while another links mind and soul to machines. And these groups may split, again and again, and wars may be fought between them. The choices are, however, to follow the evolutionary path, wherever it will lead, or to allow human beings, as a group, to stagnate and die.
The evolution of the human mind must begin now, and those who will, and do, evolve must wrest the control of their lives away from those who would keep them enslaved on the gerbil wheel of consumption and possession, and would use them as draft animals to further their own financial and political goals.
Suppose then, after reading this book, and after much thought and growth, you do break out of your slavery, and begin to evolve; what will actually happen?
If the whole world is out of touch with reality, and you get in touch, you will seem odd. “Friends” will call you crazy, and desert you, family will shake their collective and individual heads and bemoan the loss of their beloved.
You will no longer be able to see the world as you have, and will begin to see the groups that have sold their souls, in full or dibbled out over a lifetime of bad deals, accepting dung in exchange for their most precious possession. Life will become intellectually and emotionally richer, yet you will feel alone much of the time; your wisdom and intellect will become like a lantern that attracts a few kindred souls to you, but at the same time, like Diogenes' search for an honest man, that lantern will shine a light allowing you to search for others of intelligence and wisdom, and showing humans for what they really are, no longer able to fool you with trappings made of shadows.
You now come to your first evolutionary choice. You began reading this book. You can read on, or you can toss this book in the garbage. You may take the safe path of the known, or you can chance that knowing the truth, you can live with it. The decision is yours, and yours alone, but cannot be avoided; read on or stop reading. Give up or evolve;
Decide.
Ethics, or the lack thereof, is the firm, or rotten, foundation of a person or a society. Proper ethics must be in place before other issues can be dealt with, hence ethics being the second chapter of this book. All other chapters are in the order the author desired them; ethics, by necessity, must be dealt with first, and is not an easy subject. First some definitions from The Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
integrity: 1. the quality of having strong moral principles. 2. the state of being whole.8
ethics: 1. the moral principles governing or influencing conduct.9
morals: 2. standards of behavior, or principles of right and wrong.10
Simply put, morals are the rules we live by; ethics, the groups of morals; integrity, the level of consistency with which we apply the ethical code.
The reason that this chapter focuses on ethics, as opposed to morals, is that most people have a good understanding of basic morals, even if they do choose to ignore them to lesser or greater degrees. Ethics can, on the other hand, be seen as both a framework for building morals, and as a construct made of morals.
Think of it this way; you want to eventually get to Heaven, Nirvana, Paradise, or the Big Rock Candy Mountain depending on your belief system, so you, like all the rest of us, are required to build your own path. This path is not for others, but is an important part of your life's work. You get to choose the materials, and you get to build it any way you want. This is the base of personal freedom, and why, at even the most basic levels, the statement that there is no freedom without responsibility is so true.
Morals are the materials that we use to build the path; ethics are plans, blueprints, or patterns that we use, while integrity is how well we build the path, and how well we stay on the path and out of the ditches.
For the most part, you must build the path on your own, and walk it by yourself. Those lucky few who find their spouse, or life partner, to be truly compatible may find a large portion of their path to be a joint effort, with small areas where one went to the left of an obstacle, while the other went to the right, only to join up again in a short distance. Paths of friends may constantly coalesce then pull apart, only to meet again, over and over. You, however, are responsible for every bit of material that you use and place. Whether you walk on paving stones, or hip deep in muck, is up to you.
Some people choose to use no materials for their path, and we say they have no morals. It is given, then, that they are also unethical, though they may be considered to have a type of integrity if they slog, hip deep in mud, without pause, towards their goal; such is the concept of “honor among thieves” that will allow them to steal from you or me, but will never allow them to be dishonest with a cohort.
Others may choose to build a path of sharp stones and broken rocks that cause pain to themselves, those who attempt to spend any time with them, and those whose paths cross their horrid construction. These are people who willfully hurt others, and at times, when paths cross, they will end the life of the person they meet. For this reason, and this reason alone, this is why murder is the most unacceptable crime. Not because you take a person from others who love them, but because you have caused a life to be left unfinished; a person who can never reach their potential. Please note that this does not preclude lethal force as necessary for self-defense. You have no greater right than to ensure that you can reach your potential, and if it requires the killing of one who would kill you, then so be it.
The average person builds a path with many good, smooth paving stones, well set, and a few bad stones or empty areas. They will not steal from the poor, or a church, or their friends, but they will cheat on a test if they really need to pass it, to ensure they maintain their position and salary. Many of these people will segregate acts by degree, and consider some things “small sins” and “white lies”.
The person of good moral character will choose only good stones for their path, and will lay each with care and precision, creating an impeccable pattern of ethics. Usually a person who realizes the need for this, will also see the need for integrity, and will never have a bad spot in the path, or if they do, they will correct it. This person of integrity will also stay on their path, not wandering off it, or taking strange detours. When these people meet up with, or cross paths with, others, they are willing to assist and teach others, as their view of the world precludes the true understanding of why someone else would choose to build a poor path.
Understanding the above example, let us apply morals, ethics, and integrity to our current society and to our future, and how it will apply to the evolution of our minds.
It is necessary to remember that the primary point here is ethics, as defined above, not the morals that a person may have. Any person can get a list of things that they should, and should not, do from a pastor, philosopher, law enforcement official, or by searching the internet. Like a stack of paving stones, they will not make a path until you apply them. Additionally, the patterns that we create are of utmost importance. The difference between a well constructed path and poorly constructed path is our application and understanding, coupled with our design.
Let us dig into the concept of creating an ethical pattern for our lives, but as we do so, please note that self-consistency is a part of integrity. An action can be morally reprehensible, while being legally right, such as extracting exorbitant taxes from the citizenry, so that the tax money can be squandered on bureaucrats and welfare programs. As Ayn Rand pointed out in Atlas Shrugged11, we only pay taxes at the point of a gun; it is the threat of violence and imprisonment that forces us to do what we feel is not in our best interest, that being the giving up of a greater percentage of our income to government than what Christians claim God requires, that being a tithe of ten percent. We can then say that what is ethical is that which brings well-being, or integrity, while that which we simply desire may be unethical; sometimes what we want is ethical, but it is only so if it brings well-being.
The difference between ethics and law is that ethics considers how an action is viewed within a construct of rules for society, while law treats any action as a stand-alone function of a person, or more accurately, a unit of society. The near-end result of this is case law, as we have it today, with the final destination to be a computerized system that assigns punishment for action, with no concept of circumstances. When I speak of considering circumstances, I am not speaking of “mercy”; mercy, like pity, is only desired by those who do not deserve it. Justice is the desire of the wronged innocent, while mercy is the desire of the guilty.
In an ethical society, a person who hunts down a drug dealer, who was responsible for starting junior high children on crack, and kills said drug dealer, would be a hero, given that the evidence of the crime was irrefutable. In a society where the attempt has been made to ensure every moral rule has been codified, the result is a burdensome legal system that requires a great number of practitioners, and disallows flexibility in judgment. Therefore, he who kills the crack dealer, regardless of evidence, is in turn prosecuted for at least manslaughter, if not murder. In the United States, the war between “Liberal Politicians” and “Conservative Politicians”, none of which display much of an understanding of this subject, (I except Ron Paul from this judgment, as I believe he is a man of integrity; there may be others, but they seem to be rare), have passed law upon law, making any action potentially illegal.
It is necessary to point out, before continuing with ethics in societies, that each society builds an ethical “path” which structure is based on the integrity of the individuals. Just as a person's path may cross others paths, so it is with a society; when a society, building a moral path that meets the needs of its people, meets a society building a path based on greed and taking what it wants from others, there is a duty on the part of the society with integrity to instruct, and possibly punish, the society that acts unethically. If the very root of the unethical society is, for example, a religion that relegates all non-believers to the status of slaves, then it may be that the ethical society must destroy the greedy religious society that desires to own the whole earth. For the most part, wars should only be fought for defense, yet there are times when the only action that is in the best interests of ethical societies is to destroy an unethical society.
Going back to our discussion on codified law, it must be understood that this type of overly burdensome legal system has two reasons for existing. First, it is easier for unethical and, possibly dimwitted, legal practitioners to use the system. The legal system is being “dumbed down” similar to our school system, for the same reasons, that being that our current society requires people trained in the Law, not people who can think for themselves. The second, and more important reason for this system is to ensure that everyone breaks a law. Innocent people will tell the government that they are in control of their own lives. However, if a government can make everyone feel guilty of something, then said government has control of everyone. No one wants to make “waves”, or be noticed, because, with our current legal system, the government can find something, between laws and tax codes, to justify punishing every citizen.
This is the Christian concept of “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” taken to an extreme. In moderation, this concept only asks that we judge ourselves before judging others, and make the same allowances for others that we make for ourselves; in other words, don't be a hypocrite. However, when taken to the current extreme, this concept dictates that we as individuals cannot judge a murderer to be wrong, if we have ever broken a speed limit. We are all criminals, and to avoid being a criminal one must spend all of their time learning and applying law, to the exclusion of all else. This ensures that the right to be judgmental is removed from the citizen and granted to the government. In our current insane system, citizens are to give every benefit to the criminal unless they are part of a government sponsored judgmental body, referred to as a jury.
When you combine the criminalization of an entire society and a burdensome legal system with another of the despotic goals at the beginning of this missive, that being a penal system with disproportionate sentences for smaller infractions, you have a society that lives in constant fear.
If you go to a bar and have a drink, you can be arrested between the door to the bar and a taxi cab for public drunkenness; you can go to jail for a longer period of time, if a friend brings marijuana into your home, than a person will get for assault with a deadly weapon. The list goes on and on, and the possibility of arrest and imprisonment for infractions that you may not be aware of keeps everyone in our society in a constant state of fear, though it may be buried very deep, where it can cause the most trouble to the personality. Living in this constant fear stops the process of ego development, and produces citizens that act like automatons in an effort to protect themselves, and to ensure that no attention is drawn to them as they march in lock-step with their peers.
It is generally accepted that it is wrong to steal. But what of a person in some extremely poor situation that steals food to keep themselves and their children alive? Should that person be punished to the same extent as a shoplifter that steals a designer handbag, simply because they want it? Proper morals in a well constructed ethical framework will consider the situations on their own merits, while a codified legal system, set in a totally rigid ethical framework, will say “theft is theft”. In a moralistic society, a jury of twelve individuals may sympathize with the first person, and act on that emotion, while not condoning the theft, lowering the punishment to fit the relative morality of the crime; in a legalistic society the jury will be instructed by a judge that they must simply weigh the evidence and make a decision.
I would not say that we are currently in the position where a jury has no flexibility, but we are quickly approaching that point, and desperately need to turn back, and begin to live by morals, as opposed to law. In times past the people in a society understood how to act morally, without a law to cover every circumstance; now, due to increased training, and decreased education, people need to be told everything they can and cannot do.
Evolution of the human mind, or spirit if the term pleases you, requires that we have the freedom that is brought by a high moral code and a limited legal code. Evolved people will not steal because it is detrimental to themselves and to those they steal from; those suffering from arrested development will not steal to avoid the unpleasantness of arrest and prison.
The first step in this process is to realize that all true crime is theft, or the taking of something that you have not earned, paid for, or been freely given, whether it is food, material gains, shelter, money, sex, or the life of another. The punishment for the crime should be determined by the reason for the crime and how difficult repayment would be, meaning that item and quantity play a part. A person stealing $10 should not be punished the same as a person stealing $100,000. The greatest punishment goes to those who take what can never be returned, that being a life (not counting self defense or defense of others, as in that case the dead criminal forfeited their life by their criminal action). Rape comes in right below murder, as the rape victim can never get back what was taken, but is still alive, though the victim may suffer for the rest of their life. Below rape is a series of crimes diminishing in intensity and quantity.
Other than suicide, which, when successful, cannot be punished as a crime, and should not be, as our lives are our own, other actions that are seen as crimes are either crimes against yourself, or a crime against yourself and an aggravation to others, where no damages are incurred by others. However, in a powerless society, the people demand high punishment for aggravation, or even for those whose only crime is against themselves. There is no “live and let live” philosophy, as everyone feels out of control. You have only to look at some of the lawsuits and awards for trivial issues in today's world to understand that morality has take a backseat to legality. Such lawsuits include suing meteorologists for weather forecasts that turn out to be inaccurate, a man suing for $12 million when a dry cleaners lost his pants (Pearson v. Chung, and the dry cleaners won), Allen Heckard's $832 million lawsuit against Michael Jordan and Nike ® founder Phil Knight because he looked like Jordan (he dropped the suit later that year), and a variety of other suits that defy common sense.
As an aside, let me state that the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants), that most people claim as the example of a system gone awry, is not a valid case in point; in fact, this suit was very much justified. Just to make it clear to the reader, McDonald's was serving coffee at about 180 degrees Fahrenheit, while homemade coffee, and coffee from other restaurants, ran about 145 degrees. A liquid at 180 degrees will quickly cause third degree burns, as happened to Stella Liebeck, who was 79 years old at the time. The vehicle she was in was stopped, and she was a passenger, not the driver. Liebeck received third degree burns on her legs and groin (amounting to 6% of her body), and was hospitalized for eight days while receiving skin grafts. Liebeck offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000, which I estimate would have covered her out of pocket expenses; McDonald's refused to settle. During the trial it came out that there had been 700 claims by people burned by McDonald's coffee, and that McDonald's knew that this high temperature was a risk. Liebeck was awarded ten times the amount she attempted to settle for ($200,000) in compensatory damages. The $2.7 million figure was a punitive award, and was later reduced to $480,000. The parties entered into a secret settlement, so we do not know the actual punitive award. The point being, though, that the punitive damages award was to punish McDonald's for their failure to act on the 700 complaints; only the $200,000 was awarded to Liebeck for compensation. (Thanks to Bill Bass of The Bass Law Firm, LLC for originally pointing this out to me.)
To begin to evolve, people must feel that they can act by their, and their community's, moral standards, rather than by a codified legal system, and not be sued for demanding their rights, or acting in a legitimate manner. You must feel you have the right to tell someone to turn down their music, and the person you approach must understand that as a part of a society they have to respect the rights of others, if a society is to evolve. If the music player will not turn down the volume until a law enforcement officer tells them to, then they see only their right to play music, not the rights of the society to not hear their music. This is indicative of a person with arrested development, where they are like a child who will not turn down the music until their parents tell them they must, or threaten them with punishment. If you, the person bothered by their loud music, feel you must call law enforcement, then you feel powerless to improve your life, and feel you are at the mercy of the music player and dependent on the government for the simplest of requests. Under these circumstances both people are trapped by the current condition of the society, and cannot grow, or evolve.
These types of issues seem simple, but are at the root of why our society has stagnated. Based on the ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution, I believe our forefathers understood that law is the enemy of rights and the proper growth of both individuals and societies. They hoped to create a country where local law was most important, and the morals of a community could be reflected in that community's rules and laws. We were to have law that followed morals, not morals that followed law.
Times of greatest personal and societal freedom are the times of greatest growth, both for individuals and for societies. At this point, let me interject that living on welfare and food stamps is not personal freedom that allows growth. A human being, to achieve their potential, must be free to attempt to achieve; it is not the achievement, but rather the attempt, that brings growth.
The ethical path that you create may not be as pretty as your neighbors, but it is your effort to create the best path that you can, that brings growth. Governments would have us all create the exact same path, with the exact same pattern, in an attempt to ensure that no one feels belittled. This results in slavery to the government, with all ethical paths being created to be no better than the worst one created (lowest common denominator in society). You have only to see the popularity of “cookie cut” housing subdivisions to understand the danger of selling your soul for that which is average; you have only to look at the rules imposed by the homeowner's associations to see the desire of so many to be shown how to be average. That which people accept on the outside is always indicative of what they accept on the inside. Once you have traded that which would make you strong (your individuality) for the average home, auto, job, clothes, etc., you, like a jelly fish on land, have nothing to support you when adversity comes your way.
Progress has been made, recently, in such areas as the repealing of Florida's requirement that you take a step back and threaten to shoot someone attacking you before shooting them in self defense, along with the recent passing of various Castle Doctrines and defense laws that favor the victim of crime. These are steps in the right direction, for ensuring your rights in a society that is constantly trying to enslave you. The fact that these laws are needed, though, is the point that I am making. Of course you have the right to own a weapon for defense; only an idiot would say otherwise. Of course you have the right to defend yourself; only a despot would try to convince you otherwise. It defies all common sense that someone would tell you that you do not have this right. This is what is called a “God given” right. No government should ever have to pass a law that says it is okay to attempt to live. That our society has reached a point where basic morality, such as defending yourself and your family, can be construed as immoral and illegal, barring laws to the contrary, is the reason that this book must be written.
For the human race to evolve, as individuals, as societies, and as a race, we must begin to move away from a stifling legalistic structure, and back to a simplified legal system that is dependent on the ethics frameworks designed for and by communities. Those who want restrictive societies can have them, and can stagnate to extinction, while the rest of us move on with creating and realizing our potential.
We, the people, still have the power here in the United States; let's use it. Vote out any politician who you believe is more interested in power, money, or their own agenda, than in representing you. It is called a representative democracy for a reason. To this point, there are movements in this country to have freedom minded people move to a certain area, to become a majority voting block, and to turn that area into a place where the rights of mankind are foremost, thereby establishing islands of liberty and morality in a dark and stormy sea of legality. An example of this is the Free State Project12.
Human societies can grow or wither and die; no other options exist. For evolution to take place, humans and their societies must have freedom far and above that which exists today, even in the freest of societies. To obtain this freedom, we must strive for it; making any change is swimming against the current, and changing a society from a legal to a moral system attacks the very structure that can be used to thwart your efforts. For this reason, the largest numbers of people possible must ask for the change at the same time.
One way of making the legal system more moral is, should you find yourself with jury duty, vote for common sense. If someone asks for millions of dollars for the equivalent of a broken fingernail, say “no”. We can each find small ways to change the system, while we work towards larger changes. Look for the ways you can change our society and the community you live in.
Believing everything that is written after this chapter will help you to grow personally, but will not truly affect change in our society until we have moved to a society based on local morals instead of overall legality.
Chapter 3: Rights
The issue of human rights is much debated in government and in such bodies as the United Nations (UN); it is necessary to understand that all governments and governmental supported groups, such as the UN, do not seek true human rights, but only those rights for humans that will not undermine the power of the associated governments.
Human rights, however, can be stated quite simply; any right that it is possible for you to obtain by your own effort is a basic human right, while any additional right that expands your liberty and well being is a right that a society must extend to its citizens if the society wishes to evolve.
The issue of human rights is complicated, not due to its nature, but due to the nature of those attempting to limit human rights while appearing to increase those rights; it is always the politicians and legalists that muddy the water, and make simple issues seem complex.
For the purposes of this writing I will deal with the portion of the United States Constitution that is normally referred to as the Bill of Rights, and such acts as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1879; several of these are discussed as part of specific issues later in this writing, but here we seek to address these as a part of overall human rights.
First, let us enumerate and discuss the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Untied States Constitution are as follows:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence13 to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence13.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Needless to say, this chapter will be quite long, as we will go through these rights one by one, explaining, from a common sense viewpoint, the meaning of each, how it applies to us, and how our current society has gotten “off the track”. This is necessary as those who wish to evolve must understand their rights, and which of their rights are basic (sometimes referred to as “God given”) and which are allowed by the state.
When viewing the Bill of Rights it is necessary to remember the times in which it was written, and view it in it's historical context; this does not mean, as some say today, that in our current society these rights should be curtailed, but rather that the wording and phrasing of the Bill of Rights is due to what was accepted as “normal” at the time of the writing. In other words, the Framers of the Constitution may not have enumerated some rights issues due to their seeing that right as fundamental and not questioned by the situations from which they had so recently extracted our society. For instance, the original Bill of Rights does not specifically give Americans the right to “bear children” because the Framers saw this as a basic right that was unquestioned, and did not, or could not, foresee a time when our population would reach a point where some might call for the curtailment of the right to have children; this is, however, covered under Articles 9 and 10, as these limit the Federal power and instill much of our rights in the States and in the People, though it seems that the part about the “people” is much forgotten in the discourse on Federal vs. State rights.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 1st Amendment is quite clear that Congress will not legislate a national religion, nor will Congress stop a group of people from creating a religion, or exercising the religion of their choice; one must assume this would include protection for those who desire no religion, also.