Archives for posts with tag: laws

I have erred. There is hardly a more axiomatic truth than, “coercion is evil.” Some draw the line at physical violence; some at aggressive, insulting, in-your-face shouting-level speaking, but I draw it at knowingly, intentionally manipulating or deceiving, no matter how politely.

I trust I haven’t deceived anyone, but I have grown manipulative. I’ll do my best to correct that.

Laws, in general, are coercive. Yes, I hold that most laws are evil. Perhaps I should say most laws are more evil than the thing they were intended to prohibit. (Authoritarian prohibition doesn’t work.)

COVID-19 has created a catastrophe in the USA. While the virus itself is tragic and horrid, the aftermath has weakened our society such that I believe we are in the last days of the American experiment. Lincoln feared we would not long endure at only four score and seven years. We have made it a ways past that, but I think we’ve lost the plot. I am not optimistic about the world we are leaving our children and grandchildren. They may have their own bloodlettings, tragedies that might make the world wars and the communist slaughters seem trivial in comparison.

Still, humanity has been in sad shape before. No matter how bad it gets, brighter days lie beyond. I weep because I believe my generation and the current generation should have seen it coming and avoided it.

For those with apocalyptic suppositions consistent with Pentecostalism, I do not suppose we are in those last days. I’ve grown to suppose we should take the promise to Abraham as more literal than the description of the end times common among the tribe of my upbringing. That is, I expect the descendants of Abraham to number as the stars before that great and terrible day of the Lord. No time in history has better matched the premillennial interpretations better than WWII. We are still here.

To the point: I am firmly convinced that persuasion is an illusion, and the only true persuader is the pain and suffering resultant directly as consequence of one’s own belief and actions. When we suffer, when our children suffer, directly as a result of our choices, then we change our minds and our practices. Nothing else persuades, at least nothing humans can wield in any sense.

It seems to me we all unconsciously understand this fact; though I’ve yet to meet anyone who humbly accepts it. (I have much to grow into regarding that particular humility.) People pretend persuasion is real. People like Scott Adams admit most of it is hypnosis and trickery, but that is simply manipulation. Such persuasion techniques lure some into one’s fold, but nothing like rational mind-change and growth is involved. Argumentation never convinces anyone. The rare instances of seeming persuasion result only from truth-seekers who happen to find better truth while in your presence and under the sound of your voice. Your arguments didn’t convince them. They were already convinced, and you just happened to help them realize it. Because one’s effort to persuade are ultimately frustrated, everyone degenerates to coercion, or at least the desire to get one’s own way. Consequently, when we can’t persuade people to do what is right, we attempt to force them for their own good. It is the foundation of all the evil humans commit against each other.

I tend to forget persuasion is an illusion. I intentionally commit myself to truth and reality as best I can manage, and I tend to assume my arguments, my presentation of facts and rationality, can somehow lead people to better truth. It is easy to be fooled into thinking there are means of persuasion. No.

No matter how sound my argument, no matter how demonstratable and replicable my facts and figures, they mean nothing to the one who wasn’t already approaching them to begin with.

Facts do not matter.

Truly, to us humans, facts don’t matter.

We pretend to “believe” in facts. We assent to science. Still, to most people, science is merely a secularized religion and blind faith. Facts do not matter to us in general.

You can’t understand something when your livelihood depends on not understanding it. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/

What applies to understanding applies to persuasion. People believe whatever they want to believe for whatever reasons (or emotions) they find sufficient at the moment.

One cannot get from an is to an ought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

We all know that. We all pretend our science, our reasoning, our facts, our data, “clearly and obviously” show what ought to be done. Yet, policy is merely politics. There is no science nor facts involved except by happenstance.

I’m above average regarding what is. Really. As haughty as it is to say so, I do understand the is of things better than average. That is, odds are I understand whatever it is we are talking about better than you. You can take offense at that, or we can continue.

Regardless of how well I understand a thing, even if my understand is closer to ultimate reality than all other observers, I have no authority to impose what you ought to think about it. Whether I am perfectly right or absolutely wrong about it, there is no difference with regard to what anyone ought to do about it. My rightness or wrongness regarding the facts does not usually affect the morality of it.

The COVID-19 virus caused political panic, and our governments imposed grave hardship on our society. The least among us suffered most, and the infection spread unabated, and many died despite illusions of control.

Because facts don’t matter, I’ll not compare the infection-epidemics of the last century. Any story anyone wants can be woven from the history and the scant data. What is clear is our governments overreacted. It matters not how much or what might have been done differently or better. The fact remains, our governments overreacted at all levels, but facts don’t matter.

Typically, viruses spread quickly, and deadly viruses tally deaths frightfully. So was COVID-19. Then, it subsided just as viruses typically do, and our governments mostly became more rational again, but the rot is extensive and the loss of the plot of our national story is too far gone. Politics and the fears that drive politicians have held sway, and the madness of the crowds has only grown darker and more destructive.

Lacking control, and politicians find lack of control to be an existential threat, the politicians flailed about for anything to grasp and control. The pain and suffering resultant from lockdowns was sufficient to dissuade many politicians of trying that again, so they settled on ritualistic outward shows. Face it, the mask is no more than a social-religious purity rite. One can point to countless superstitions and religious rituals that are the same. While there is no evidence the rite is at all efficacious for the need, it obviously does something; “it helps” is so easy to say when this or that can be shown to be reliably demonstrated, despite the fact that none of it addresses the disease or the realities of transmission. It looks good to the majority; thus, it must be so. Facts don’t matter.

I can point to many more research papers than you can, but facts don’t matter.

Masks are of no practical value, but facts don’t matter. This is where we stumble from the is to the ought.

Masks are not medically significant, but they are an outward show, and they are supposed (they ought) to be of at least some moral significance. See the difficulty? The fact cannot argue for the ought. The moral significance is not something science or medicine can address. The moral significance is a cultural and religious issue, thus, a social-religious purity rite is the obvious outcome.

In the USA, we hold moral significance in the separation of the church and the state. The government, at every level in our nation, ought not impose any religious practice on anyone. We, as a culture, find it morally reprehensible to impose the beliefs of some onto others. It is our moral consensus, the majority opinion, faithfully held and executed.

Yet, our governments are imposing an outward moral practice, a social-religious purity rite, upon us all regardless of our own individual morals or convictions.

Can you acknowledge that mask-wearing is a moral issue?

If you can, can you not see that many individuals will have moral convictions in opposition strong enough to die for, strong enough to fight for, even kill for?

Why would you want that?

Is your fear of the virus so overwhelming that you will trade the life of the person willing to die for his beliefs over the person who might not be able to overcome an infection, an infection that is likely inevitable eventually anyway?

I started by saying I erred. I tried to manipulate people emotionally with shortcuts to my arguments here.

I hold it self-evident that authoritarian impositions directly harm the lest among us, especially those with less mental stamina than average, those who just might be pushed into suicide or unrecoverable mental illness by the authoritarian imposition.

While mask-shamers assert refusing masks endangers others, I am just as certain mask-mandaters are endangering those who could not resist the power of the state, the police, the fine-collectors, and the jailers.

Thus, I erred, I sinned. I repent. While the mandaters and shamers were trying to coerce me and others resistant to being told what to do, I was trying to coerce them for opposite reasons. The basis is moral. It cannot be resolved without relationships, trust-building, and proven good faith.

Thus, I find the reason for coercion and mandate. Power corrupts, but it temporarily enforces the morals of the powerful.

Get it? Some say, “But not everyone will do what is right.” Of course. Fundamentally, you have no authority to say what is right. While you are so fallible, your highest ideals and notions of what is right are as filthy rags. Of course, not everyone will do it. Many will believe it is wrong to do it. They believe you are morally wrong. You have no authority to assert otherwise; thus, you grab power, you call a vote to rubber stamp your edict, and you make pretenses that your coercive evil acts are justified. No, it is not justified. It is merely hypnotic manipulation of the mob. Mob rule is never justifiable.

No, your evil coercive acts bread more evil and coercion. Soon, it is the Soviet Union. Soon, it is the Gulag and every third person is a government informant seeking some small favor and morsel of the power for turning you in.

Only love can drive out hate. Only relationship, trust, and cooperation can find and build societal moral consensus. Seizing power and forcing mandates, restrictions, and social-religious purity rites may work quicker, but is far more brutal. It is the opposite of humane. We pass more and more laws and emergency edicts at our peril.

It is not just a mask.

Philadelphia Dec. 23. 1791.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. — Thomas Jefferson

A friend posted on Facebook about the Oklahoma State Question 788 legalizing marijuana per doctor’s note. I had commented about the legal prohibition forcing me to be responsible for the harm caused by the law.

I was camping for a few days, so now I’m able to take time to write a bit. We Oklahomans vote on the matter tomorrow (26 June 2018).

To be blunt, I oppose all legal prohibitions of vices. If there is no victim, there can be no justification for laws criminalizing the action. (Rationalizations and mental gymnastics should be employed for liberty, not for coercion.)

I’m using the word vice to mean actions that are reasonably called bad, even harmful to oneself, and perhaps, by extension, hurtful to ones loved-ones. I mean actions that are done willingly, even if unwisely, with malice toward no one. That is, if I abuse a substance, I will likely harm myself, but I’m not doing it with malice. I don’t intend to harm anyone, even if the end result will hurt those who care about me. On the other hand, there are natural crimes where my actions intentionally, or at least directly, harm someone else. The most obvious is murder.

It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have. Will Munny (Clint Eastwood’s character in Unforgiven.)

If I may use “natural crimes” to mean that which victimizes at least one other, and vices to mean that which harms no one directly except the doer, then perhaps I can be clear.

I first must set forth my consideration of law, any law, every law. When I consider whether a law is justifiable, I use this criterion: If someone was about to violate the law, and if I had a gun to the would-be criminal’s head, would I be willing to say, “Stop, or else!” If they persisted, would I be willing to pull the trigger?

If the law they are violating is life, if the perpetrator is about to commit murder (a natural crime), or inflict grave injury and harm, then, yes, I could suppose I’d be willing to pull the trigger, and I suppose I would be justified.

If the law they are violating is texting while driving, or smoking a joint, no. Don’t be absurd. Of course not. Yet, we have the laws.

Sure, driving while intoxicated or negligently distracted is dangerous, but it is not intentionally malicious. If someone is negligent along such lines, we have reasonable and justifiable liability laws. We hold them accountable.

Someone might object that a negligent driver may accidentally take a life as a result, and liability and reparations cannot bring back the dead nor satisfy the bereaved. Certainly, but let us consider the natural and often likely extreme; if law-enforcement attempts to apprehend the negligent driver (for citation or arrest), the driver may refuse to comply, and it doesn’t take much for someone to die in such circumstance. A high-speed chase is too often fatal. A “criminal” who objects to being criminalized for a vice often becomes belligerent, and, far too often, such situations end in someone dying.

In many instances, our protection is merely hypothetical. How can we justify proactively coercing someone to protect a life, when the coercion itself is an evil act and very well may result in loss of life. Life for life in the abstract is not justifiable. Life for life can only be justified when the threat of death is clear and imminent. Even in war, it is morally reprehensible for me to take the life of an enemy combatant who is clearly attempting to surrender.

Here is the point I hoped to make on Facebook regarding State Question 788 and the decriminalization of marijuana if a doctor signs off on it. The Law currently criminalizes the possessor or seller of a naturally grown plant. Said criminal is subject to all manner of force and coercion at the hands of law enforcement officials. I cannot justify sending our police to enforce such unjustifiable laws. Our police are armed, and they are trained to use force, even deadly force, to uphold the law. Whether the law is justifiable or not, I am literally responsible, given that is our system, and in it, I am the authority and basis of the government. The government rules by my consent. If I consent, I am responsible.

As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, I am much more willing to deal with the problems attendant to too much liberty. I do not have a clear conscience if I am responsible for too little liberty. I am responsible, in our society, here in the USA, here in Oklahoma, if our government is, in fact, tyrannical. I will act in legal, civil, and voluntary ways to increase liberty and to minimize tyranny. I must make a legitimate effort to repeal unjustifiable and unnecessary laws. I must support decriminalize of drug use, even if it is only halfway.

The same goes for immigration, but that is not the topic here. We must have constraints on immigration, but our laws are too restrictive, and worse, too complicated and hard to enforce. Many of our laws are based on fear. Many of our laws are based on favoring some at the expense of others. That is tyranny, and it is wrong.

I hope my point is clear. I oppose prohibitions on vices because I find the prohibitions more immoral than the vices prohibited. I oppose prohibitions on vices because such prohibitions require our police to enforce unjustifiable laws. Further, unjustifiable laws result in unfair enforcement and unfair judicial practice because mercy and justice cannot be consistently considered. Further still, excess laws, unjustifiable or simply unneeded, push our police beyond their warrant. Excessive laws force our police to overextend, increasing their risks unjustifiably.

Specifically, how many police have died because of a marijuana arrest? How many times have drug raids and drug enforcement deprived a more worthy use of police capabilities?

Again, all of this is my fault, our fault, collectively, because we vote for it. We don’t bend the ears of our legislators and peacefully persuade them to repeal the unjustifiable laws. We don’t vote them out and install representatives who will listen.

Prohibition of vices causes more harm than good. Prohibition of vices is more immoral than the vice.

We have the example of alcohol. Of course, it is different. Yet, it is simply a vice. Many people, good, bad, innocent, and otherwise, died trying to prohibit alcohol in our country. We have many problems associated with alcohol. Many people suffer, and many people die. Yet, we don’t cause it. We, collectively, are not responsible for suffering and death resultant from free choices of free people. Our responsibility ends with our innate obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves. I have a simple obligation to my neighbor, my relative, my friend, who has a problem with addiction, or whatever, in so far as I care about them and want the best for them, within my capabilities.

Passing a law and sending the police to enforce it is not the same; it is not a way to fulfill my obligation to love my neighbor. It is coercion, and coercion is evil.

Coercion, being evil, is only justifiable when the coercion enforced is obviously less evil than the harm prevented. By obvious, I mean a clear and imminent harm.

Again, I stand with Jefferson. No doubt, there are problems associated with decriminalizing drugs, but the problems of liberty are not immoral. The problems caused by coercion are immoral. Let us all choose to stand for liberty. Let us all honor every individual as self-sovereign. Let us all refuse to coerce.

 

 

 

Here is a hard thing. “The only way to grow out of the state is to not treat it as an alien “other” but as a reflection of a violence-addicted culture.”

We, you and I, commit violence against others with our laws, with our regulations, with our prisons.

You and I have blood on our hands. Our lawmakers ensure it.

For every evil a state-enforced regulation alleviates, it perpetrates more, maybe many more, maybe many times worse. You and I are responsible.

When one causes suffering, that one is responsible. When our government, our state, our laws, our police cause suffering, we are all responsible. All of us have the blood on our hands.

“Don’t be evil,” the saying goes. What is evil? It is at least the causing of suffering unnecessarily. Do our prohibitions cause suffering? Yes. You know our drug laws, our prostitution laws, our petty prohibitions of this and that, our requirement of this or that, they all cause suffering. They all result in harming people and families in prisons and other obvious harms. Why continue?

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson, Philadelphia Dec. 23. 1791.

If we live to “protect,” how? How can we protect anyone older than about six years? We can only protect people by imposing on them. Coercion is evil. Coercion is always evil. Why commit evil to protect? There is one reasonable justification: when the evil prevented is obviously worse than the evil imposed by the coercion, when that evil prevented was clear, present, and imminent.

Coercion, imposition of law, needs to be stripped of its layers and accoutrements, especially the pretty ones. We pretend our laws are for the good, but what good? Strip the law down to its ultimate: Every law has you, ultimately, holding a gun to someone’s head and saying, “Comply or else!”

You scoff. You recoil. You would never do that. Heck,  you may even protest you own no gun, you may even claim you’ve never held a gun, but did you vote? Did you pay taxes? Don’t you sanction the police, at least when you need them? Did you cheer when the law passed? “No more texting and driving,” you cried in triumph. Yet, what of the young person who does so anyway, who is seen, caught red-handed, by an officer of the law? Who, when the siren sounds and the lights flash, refuses to submit? What then? High speed chase? Property damage, injury, loss of life? All because you insisted on assigning enforcement, the guys with the guns, to enforce your coercive, self-serving, even narcissistic and egotistical, will.

You! You supported that. You are responsible. There is blood on your hands.

We must change our ways. We must change our laws. We must abandon punishment in our civic culture. We all know what harm is. When there is a responsible party, intentional, negligent, or something similar, we understand justice. We understand the harm, the wrong, must be set right in some way. Punishing the responsible party is seldom warranted. Locking the person in a cage, how have we remained so evil so long?

When someone is harmed, we must find ways to set it right, ways that may involve substantial hardship for the responsible party. We can be reasonable, merciful, and still see justice done.

The old rule of eye-for-eye and life-for-life may need to be applied on rare occasions, but we normally have much more rational, even more effective, options.

Imposing harm willingly is the height of evil. Yet, we do it every day.

We harm those who violate our laws daily, and we harm those who love them or depend on them. We cause the harm, and we know it! That is the evil of our society, not supposed slights and unconscious bias.

Our laws need to focus on harm done and reparation. We must abandon punishment in most civil and criminal matters. We must figure out how to stop locking up all but our most dangerous fellow humans.

Here is another idea we must internalize, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

I am the monster. You are the monster. Our society, our laws, our enforcement, our systems! We are the monster! “There is none righteous, no not one!

Think, are you not frightened whenever you think of doing something out of the ordinary? Don’t you wonder if it is illegal, if someone might call the police, if the police just might show up for you? Oh, what evil we have wrought! We live in a society where the sensitive among us live in fear of the police, the state. Why?

When we impose regulation on children, on parents, on education, we are restricting, coercing, demanding what is not rightfully ours.

For many thousands of years, we have made do just fine with no imposition of regulations on parents. How can our hubris reach so high as to think this or that rule improves the human lot? Nemesis visits us already. Her reminders to return to humility, to minding our own business, are not usually extreme, but they will become so if we continue our imposing, coercive ways. It is simply the nature of existence. TANSTAAFL and “Mind own business.” That is the existence we have. It is what we should celebrate. We can only have the best when we all trust one another to the good, to be honest, to accomplish our own necessities. Our meddling only, almost always, increases suffering more than necessary.

I allow for the needs, for the necessities, because nothing is ever perfect, at least not in the existence we live.

I want less government, less law, less meddling, less imposition, less coercion. I’m not advocating for overthrow. No! What we have works pretty well. Let’s not blow it up. But, we can start restricting it. We can start repealing laws. We can start lowering budgets and eliminating programs. Such is the road to less harm and more general welfare.

There are no government programs that don’t cause harm. Get it? All government programs, all government action, causes harm. Government programs and actions harm some, some individuals. In many instances, the government action is causing more harm, more human suffering, than it alleviates, even when the best of intentions are legitimate and even when well supervised.

Government causes harm. It is inarguable. Freedom is better. Of course, there are those who will take advantage when opportunity arises, and that is why we need the sanctioned violence, the enforcement, the police, the guys with the guns. Yes, we need them. (We also need to be able to defend ourselves from them.)

However, we need less than we have.

Our needs our meager when it comes to government, yet we surfeit! Why?

Why is government excess the one excess we revel in. Is revelling in excess not sin, simply by definition! Of course, it is. Let us stop insisting on continuing this sin.

Less government, and let’s start with less laws.

 

 

 

Heartland posted regarding Oklahoma’s shameful asset forfeiture laws.

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-oklahoma-civil-asset-forfeiture-reform-0

I wrote this on Facebook, opening with a quote from the article, duplicating here:

In all civil forfeitures in Oklahoma, property owners are presumed guilty and are forced to contest forfeiture and prove they were not aware their property was being used illegally.

Isn’t that enough for us, as Americans, don’t we honor and hold as sacred the Fifth Amendment? “No person shall […], 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.”

Don’t we believe that? Shouldn’t we rid ourselves of the stench of takings without due process?

Don’t we also honor the 14th Amendment? “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Don’t we also hold in highest regard the Golden Rule? Doesn’t each of us want full due legal process, full trial by impartial jury, when it is our stuff being taken? Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

We are talking of crimes here, not civil issues. We seem to pretend it is a civil issue, like the state is suing over the stuff, but no; it is being taken for a crime; the crime may even be assumed. There are no small number of instances where assets are taken, or even simply frozen (impounded), and no crime was ever even charged, much less proven. And with frozen assets, how does one even afford to mount a legal defense?

The entire notion of asset forfeiture until after full due process and proof of crime, and finding and assigning guilt, is totally reprehensible and should be anathema to all who claim to be American.

Perhaps, if Oklahoma will not rid itself of this blight, we can secede from the Union and declare ourselves the “Banana Republic of Sheriff Boss”. It seems to always be the Sheriffs in the lead fighting to keep taking property without due process.

State Senator Kyle Loveless, Kyle D. Loveless, I thank you for trying to improve the situation for all Oklahomans and for honoring our fundamental national values. Perhaps only small steps are politically possible, but we must start, and we must do more. Only full due process before forfeiture is just. Only justice will suffice.

http://biblehub.com/micah/6-8.htm
Live justly, love mercy, walk humbly.

%d bloggers like this: