I used to live in a free society. The key phrase in that sentence is "used to live". At one time, freedom, was respected and privacy was revered. Persons in the United States were once free to be individuals. In fact, it was the lack of personal and individual freedom which irritated the founding fathers so much that when the United States was formed these freedoms were given exalted status.
To be sure, people were not free to commit rape, murder, and robbery. But these were terrible crimes which no one person in society condoned. Almost unanimously, these crimes were condemned by society and persons who committed them were punished. The "Law of the West" not withstanding, murder and other crimes so strongly impinge upon the freedom of others that they cannot be tolerated. These crimes were termed "malum in se" by lawyers and others who spoke Latin but had trouble expressing themselves in English.
Soon however, the environment this personal freedom fostered became so prosperous and desireable that others flocked to the United States. These others were not equipped to be responsible for themselves (and no one is suggesting people are now). These people were used to following and did not wish to change their traditions and beliefs. Not content to follow their own ideas in freedom, they were afraid that this new freedom would allow their children, and their children's children, and their spouses and friends to change their behaviour and actions. Thus, in order ro preserve their world view, new laws were needed. I am NOT speaking of laws "respecting religion" which are prohibited by the Constitution. I AM speaking of laws which impinge personal freedom in the name of the police power. They are well-known. They are the ones that protect health, safety, welfare and morals.
There are two types of police power laws. There are those like the crimes mentioned before and similar laws such as those against drunken driving. Again, the consequences of breaking these laws are so dire that limits had to be placed on the personal freedoms of individuals. Then there are those like the laws against prostitution or the now-repealed law against drinking. These laws protect no one but the person who is made the criminal by them. The prostitute harms no one, except maybe him or herself, when the crime is committed. A drinker who has a drink at home has only hurt him or herself, if anyone at all.
The only possible harm to anyone only comes when these people come in contact with someone in a different way. For example, when a prostitute transmits a communicable disease or the drinkier kills someone while driving drunk. The law then, seems more logically to be one which makes it a crime to transmit the disease or drive drunk. In other words, the crime should be that which causes the harm to the other's freedoms.
But there lies the problem. The writers of these laws are not attempting to address a harm to society. They are trying to promote a world view that says prostitution is wrong, or drinking is wrong. The facade of using the police power is justified by saying that the protection of the individual is protection of society. The tenuous connection is the ripples through society when such a crime is committed, or when the ultimate results of continued such action occur. The protection of the family and all that jaxx. Another concrete example: punishment of attempted suicide. THere is a tenuous link to say the family is harmed and that the state has a vested interest in keeping it's citizens alive. Even if it is only going to send them to die in a war.
The question now must be asked, "what about the person or family which doesn't share the same view of this protection?" The prostitute whose family is NOT shattered because a parent is a prostitute is NOT being protected. Perhaps they share the world view of the prostitute, not the lawmakers. The family of a drinker may not be abused, neglected, or ruined. They may share the drinker's world view. Crimes should be actions casing harm: not actions which challenge the world view of the lawmakers.
This ideal is not how the world now operates. Many laws restricting personal freedoms are really protecting not concrete harms, but rather the emotional frailties of people sho cannot stand to have their was of thinking challenged. To be sure, smoking can scientifically be linked to a harm caused by secondary smoke. But can we say that by making it a criminla offense, by subjecting smokers to such degradation which may very well "rock the family", that we have PREVENTED a harm? The REAL crime is in forcing others to passively smoke, not smoking itself. Smoking marijauna was not even approached as a crime because of this type of harm. Smoking marijuana was made a crime to protect the very families whose lives are daily and routinely ruined by making their members criminals and outcasts from society.
No, I used to live in a free society, and I may again. But for now I have to endure, and work against the imposition of someone else's ideas of freedom.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Do you know...
Do you know
What dying means?
Have you lived
In a land of dreams?
Shadows fall
On the wall
That's all.
Shadows of the past
Drift by so fast.
Things that I've seen
Have never been.
Shadows fall
Oh so slow
Do you know?
Shadows yet to come
I don't know where from.
Things that I see
Things that will be.
Shadows rise
In the skies
Telling lies.
Do you know
What dying means?
Have you lived
In a land of dreams?
Shadows fall
On the wall
That's all.
What dying means?
Have you lived
In a land of dreams?
Shadows fall
On the wall
That's all.
Shadows of the past
Drift by so fast.
Things that I've seen
Have never been.
Shadows fall
Oh so slow
Do you know?
Shadows yet to come
I don't know where from.
Things that I see
Things that will be.
Shadows rise
In the skies
Telling lies.
Do you know
What dying means?
Have you lived
In a land of dreams?
Shadows fall
On the wall
That's all.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Untitled 6/9/1982...
NOTE: across the top of this writing were the words, "6-9-82 10:54 - Brand new watch. Nice night!"
Turn the page: don't ask the question.
How many times must I ask to be alone before it happens?
How many times must I talk on the phone before I find the wrappins,
For the life I feel,
The needs I have,
And the life I crave.
When will the life and the life-giving force rage?
In order to being the best to life and the worst to ruin
To advance the thought and retard the death
Of all that is noble and true.
Freedom is but a state of mind,
Advanced by those in bondage.
Not part of my world and, I hope, not part of yours.
But reality, none the less.
Turn the page: don't ask the question.
How many times must I ask to be alone before it happens?
How many times must I talk on the phone before I find the wrappins,
For the life I feel,
The needs I have,
And the life I crave.
When will the life and the life-giving force rage?
In order to being the best to life and the worst to ruin
To advance the thought and retard the death
Of all that is noble and true.
Freedom is but a state of mind,
Advanced by those in bondage.
Not part of my world and, I hope, not part of yours.
But reality, none the less.
Untitled 8/4/1979...
NOTE: Most of the recent posts, including this one, were written years ago. Most were notes to myself that I wanted to write about later, and never did. I am publishing them here without any editing just for the fun of it.
Why. This statement has only one basic refute necessary. Although others possibly can be used one can always be used and should require no further explanation.
This reply, or refute, etc. is, quite simply, why not?
Basically the difference between these two is minimal. The former asks for justification as to the reasons for something and the latter asks for justification as to the reasons against the same something.
Both questions are actually unnecessary because if the person they are addressed to wished the asker of the question to have justification the former would simply have told the latter.
Ever since man has learned to say why and understand it intelligibly some smart aleck has answered why not. Isn't it time man realizes there are not always simple justifications as to the reasons for or against something and quits asking? Every man should realize that the answer to why or why not might be a gut feeling and nor a logic of any sort. Logic is a useful tool and if used as a means of evaluation it is priceless. I must stress, thought, that the use of logic to justify something which one does not believe is a bad use and can only lead to trouble.
Now that I have expounded on the follies of why and why not, I believe I should also state that these two questions are also a basic part of human nature. It is natural for a person ro ask these questions because humans are inquisitive and have been given the ability to reason. Because of this ability, man has suppressed his primitive instincts and replaced them with logic. Logic tells us that for every phenomenon there is a reason.
I say, "Not so." I don't believe everything that happens has a simple reason, or even a comlex one for that matter. Maybe these [the text simply ends here.]
Why. This statement has only one basic refute necessary. Although others possibly can be used one can always be used and should require no further explanation.
This reply, or refute, etc. is, quite simply, why not?
Basically the difference between these two is minimal. The former asks for justification as to the reasons for something and the latter asks for justification as to the reasons against the same something.
Both questions are actually unnecessary because if the person they are addressed to wished the asker of the question to have justification the former would simply have told the latter.
Ever since man has learned to say why and understand it intelligibly some smart aleck has answered why not. Isn't it time man realizes there are not always simple justifications as to the reasons for or against something and quits asking? Every man should realize that the answer to why or why not might be a gut feeling and nor a logic of any sort. Logic is a useful tool and if used as a means of evaluation it is priceless. I must stress, thought, that the use of logic to justify something which one does not believe is a bad use and can only lead to trouble.
Now that I have expounded on the follies of why and why not, I believe I should also state that these two questions are also a basic part of human nature. It is natural for a person ro ask these questions because humans are inquisitive and have been given the ability to reason. Because of this ability, man has suppressed his primitive instincts and replaced them with logic. Logic tells us that for every phenomenon there is a reason.
I say, "Not so." I don't believe everything that happens has a simple reason, or even a comlex one for that matter. Maybe these [the text simply ends here.]
Untitled, 1978-1979
-I can't do that, of course I can. Yes that's what I want, it conveys better meaning. Meaning in a graveyard scene?
I saw the white gravestones rising from the ground and floating around my head.
-Oh yeah! meaning.
They were covered with epitaphs and names. I had a strange desire...
-Funny I have a desire right now. Food! Where'd I put that sandwich?
...to look for mine.
-Yes, MY sandwich.
There's a dead tree there. I remembered...
-My sandwich.
...a tree like that where my dad put a swing.
-If I can't eat it I'll write about it.
My dad made it out of a breadbox and the ropes were from cords that hung beef in the butcher shop.
-Ready made hamburg. Very rare, though.
I opened my eyes, I was not sure if I had been sleeping. I was in a grave. It had been dug newly, the ground was still wet. I started sinking in the water...
-Really, I'm thirsty after my hamburg.
or rather, the water was rising up above me. It was cold. As it reached my head I started swimming.
-Boy, this is wierd.
Good thing the water came, I swam out of the grave.
-"Pool." Add humor. Hah! Why?
It was a very small grave, possibly a child's. In fact, I could almost see the child's small ghost guarding it. The trees waved...
-"Goodbye as if to mean you'll die," Oh, very poetique, I am SO fantastic
.... Hello like the old witch in Hansel and Gretel.
-Not peotique but better than being morbid. That's another joke, avoid being morbid in a graveyard.
Nearby, an old morgue stood abandoned with chain clanging spirits flying above.
-I hope it's witches. Chap. 1: witches. Women who ___ don't get ignorant, back to the story.
They were spirits of the people whose bones now danced...
-"Beneath the saves," That sounds like a sea story, waves of earth, that's better.
...beneath the waves of earth. The earth was actually like waves, I almost felt seasick.
-More and more like a sea story.
They actually began undulating slightly and the ground looked much like water.
-Walking on water, just like God. Hard work makes you tired, I want a cup of coffee. Where'd the maid leave that? Left shelf, dummy. Three tablespoonfuls per pot. Use four, I like it strong. I want a more comfortable chair. Oh no! spilled. Clean it up, back to the story, boring as it is, Boring! I should say perfect, after all, I an. I can't create anything less than perfect. Perfection's relative. Year, heh, and I'm relatively perfect.
The moon turned a pale blue, and I felt a shudder. The blueness of the moon against the pitch black sky cast a pervading blue mist over the graveyard. The old gate creaked noisily in the soft Northern wind. The wind howled. Or was it a coyote perhaps.
-Prob'ly a drunk. They're going to think this is a master piece. If only they could hear what I'm thinking. If they could I'd be broke from now 'till my reincarnation.
A crow landed on the mortuary's roof. The morgue was dark and foreboding. A huge iron door, which was chained shut, guarded the entrance. Many times since then I have wondered why the necessity of the chain.
-So do I. Was it to keep things from getting in, or from getting out? Leave it. Let other people decide since I can't.
It was said the chain guarded the treasures within from those withour who would want the treasures found in a morgue while at the same time guarding those outside from the consequences of gaining those treasures.
-That's a petty way of getting out of it. I'm so great I should have been a politician. Criminal? Analogous.
I saw the white gravestones rising from the ground and floating around my head.
-Oh yeah! meaning.
They were covered with epitaphs and names. I had a strange desire...
-Funny I have a desire right now. Food! Where'd I put that sandwich?
...to look for mine.
-Yes, MY sandwich.
There's a dead tree there. I remembered...
-My sandwich.
...a tree like that where my dad put a swing.
-If I can't eat it I'll write about it.
My dad made it out of a breadbox and the ropes were from cords that hung beef in the butcher shop.
-Ready made hamburg. Very rare, though.
I opened my eyes, I was not sure if I had been sleeping. I was in a grave. It had been dug newly, the ground was still wet. I started sinking in the water...
-Really, I'm thirsty after my hamburg.
or rather, the water was rising up above me. It was cold. As it reached my head I started swimming.
-Boy, this is wierd.
Good thing the water came, I swam out of the grave.
-"Pool." Add humor. Hah! Why?
It was a very small grave, possibly a child's. In fact, I could almost see the child's small ghost guarding it. The trees waved...
-"Goodbye as if to mean you'll die," Oh, very poetique, I am SO fantastic
.... Hello like the old witch in Hansel and Gretel.
-Not peotique but better than being morbid. That's another joke, avoid being morbid in a graveyard.
Nearby, an old morgue stood abandoned with chain clanging spirits flying above.
-I hope it's witches. Chap. 1: witches. Women who ___ don't get ignorant, back to the story.
They were spirits of the people whose bones now danced...
-"Beneath the saves," That sounds like a sea story, waves of earth, that's better.
...beneath the waves of earth. The earth was actually like waves, I almost felt seasick.
-More and more like a sea story.
They actually began undulating slightly and the ground looked much like water.
-Walking on water, just like God. Hard work makes you tired, I want a cup of coffee. Where'd the maid leave that? Left shelf, dummy. Three tablespoonfuls per pot. Use four, I like it strong. I want a more comfortable chair. Oh no! spilled. Clean it up, back to the story, boring as it is, Boring! I should say perfect, after all, I an. I can't create anything less than perfect. Perfection's relative. Year, heh, and I'm relatively perfect.
The moon turned a pale blue, and I felt a shudder. The blueness of the moon against the pitch black sky cast a pervading blue mist over the graveyard. The old gate creaked noisily in the soft Northern wind. The wind howled. Or was it a coyote perhaps.
-Prob'ly a drunk. They're going to think this is a master piece. If only they could hear what I'm thinking. If they could I'd be broke from now 'till my reincarnation.
A crow landed on the mortuary's roof. The morgue was dark and foreboding. A huge iron door, which was chained shut, guarded the entrance. Many times since then I have wondered why the necessity of the chain.
-So do I. Was it to keep things from getting in, or from getting out? Leave it. Let other people decide since I can't.
It was said the chain guarded the treasures within from those withour who would want the treasures found in a morgue while at the same time guarding those outside from the consequences of gaining those treasures.
-That's a petty way of getting out of it. I'm so great I should have been a politician. Criminal? Analogous.
How to Accomplish Anarchy...
The following post is a paper I wrote for no particular reason when I was about 17. I would have been in 8th grade or so the year (yes, I am dating myself) would have been 1980. It is possible it was 1978 or 79, but it really matters little. I do not claim this has any great inherent value. IN fact, parts of it I now disagree with completely. I also apologize for the poor grammer. However, the piece does give a glimpse into what adolescents at that time may have thought about the theory of anarchy.
Anarchy is a form of government in which government has no form. This contradictory statement means simply that the only government in anarchism is the individual governing that people impose between themselves and without any organized structure. This form, or rather lack of form, is seem by many as an ideal form of government. The problem arises on how to affect the changeover from the exisitng forms of government to that of anarchism. Anarchy can be accomplished by destroying the credibility of the existing forms of government, organizing the people into a political party based on pure democracy, and overthrowing the existing government by means of concensus.
The first step in establishing anarchy is to discredit the existing form of government and destroy any faith the people may have in it. Propaganda is an essential tool. One work in the right place can cause a person to lose faith in his government. Capital manipulation is another good way to discredit the administration in power. Controlling the wealth, or large blocs of this wealth, in order to cause inflated prices and bribe government officials coupled with propaganda blaming the inflated prices on the greed of the bribed official catering to special interest groups is a difficult blow for a government to recover from. Many experiments in destroying credibility have become famous. The inability of the Russian politburoto feed its people, the break in at the Watergate building in America, and the world wide problem of inflation are three of the most famous examples.
The second step in accomplishing anarchy is the formation of the masses into a political party. This party must have a loose form and in reality only has two rules: everyone votes on everything and majority rules. These two rules make the party purely democratic and allows a broad basis for the overrthrow of the existing government. All that is needed is a maority to take control. THis party should be ready at all times to vote and should have no fear of making decisions contrary to those of the existing government. The best known examples of this organization, or disorganization, taking precedence is in the draft resistance during the Vietnam Was and the recent labor strikes in Poland.
The final step toward anarchy is the actual overthrow of the existing government. A majority of all of the members of the party must vote that the form of government in power at that time no longer have power. The party members then proceed to actualize this by refusal to comply with the government policies and open defiance in strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of civil disobedience. In case the government reacts violently the party should be prepared to overthrow and destroy the government by force. It has been shown that existing governments can be smashed by miliraty force since ancient times and Mohatma Ghandi has shown the world how civil disobedience can topple a government.
The realization of an anarchical form of government is a long process often involving physical danger which should be undertaken only after considerable study and thought. If all the steps are taken, in the proper order, for a revolution vefore it was demonstrated anything was wrong with the existing government woudl be senseless, anarchy can be accomplished.
Anarchy is a form of government in which government has no form. This contradictory statement means simply that the only government in anarchism is the individual governing that people impose between themselves and without any organized structure. This form, or rather lack of form, is seem by many as an ideal form of government. The problem arises on how to affect the changeover from the exisitng forms of government to that of anarchism. Anarchy can be accomplished by destroying the credibility of the existing forms of government, organizing the people into a political party based on pure democracy, and overthrowing the existing government by means of concensus.
The first step in establishing anarchy is to discredit the existing form of government and destroy any faith the people may have in it. Propaganda is an essential tool. One work in the right place can cause a person to lose faith in his government. Capital manipulation is another good way to discredit the administration in power. Controlling the wealth, or large blocs of this wealth, in order to cause inflated prices and bribe government officials coupled with propaganda blaming the inflated prices on the greed of the bribed official catering to special interest groups is a difficult blow for a government to recover from. Many experiments in destroying credibility have become famous. The inability of the Russian politburoto feed its people, the break in at the Watergate building in America, and the world wide problem of inflation are three of the most famous examples.
The second step in accomplishing anarchy is the formation of the masses into a political party. This party must have a loose form and in reality only has two rules: everyone votes on everything and majority rules. These two rules make the party purely democratic and allows a broad basis for the overrthrow of the existing government. All that is needed is a maority to take control. THis party should be ready at all times to vote and should have no fear of making decisions contrary to those of the existing government. The best known examples of this organization, or disorganization, taking precedence is in the draft resistance during the Vietnam Was and the recent labor strikes in Poland.
The final step toward anarchy is the actual overthrow of the existing government. A majority of all of the members of the party must vote that the form of government in power at that time no longer have power. The party members then proceed to actualize this by refusal to comply with the government policies and open defiance in strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of civil disobedience. In case the government reacts violently the party should be prepared to overthrow and destroy the government by force. It has been shown that existing governments can be smashed by miliraty force since ancient times and Mohatma Ghandi has shown the world how civil disobedience can topple a government.
The realization of an anarchical form of government is a long process often involving physical danger which should be undertaken only after considerable study and thought. If all the steps are taken, in the proper order, for a revolution vefore it was demonstrated anything was wrong with the existing government woudl be senseless, anarchy can be accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)