Foundations

It is said a house without a good foundation can not stand. It is with this thought I being this new journey of self-explanation. The foundation of my beliefs is simple in it's explanation, however it's consequences can be profound.

There are two foundational beliefs that I hold.

My first belief is that the Universe created, or caused to be created, me (one could say "God" created me. I'd say if "God" created me, it was through the Universe that he created me. To me, it's the same concept) the human being. Following the non-self-evident Law of Property states that "he who creates, controls" the only person authorized to take my life is the Universe or lacking any opinion from it, myself. It is because I was created and designed with the ability of self-control, that absent of the Universe telling me what to do, that I tell myself what to do.

Now, as the Universe created me and granted me such an ability as self-control, it also created a set of Laws for me to follow. Some of these Laws are self-evident, such as the Law of Gravity, the Law of Hydrodynamics, and the countless other Laws that are self-evident. Also some Laws are unclear, these Laws require me to engage some of those other abilities the Universe has given me, such as logic and reason. It is through these abilities, that I can form new understandings of the unclear Laws that the Universe has created.

So, I apply logic and reason to my life. I must eat to survive. I must maintain my body temperature through shelter, clothing, or something else. It is through the exercise of the Liberty that the Universe has granted me that I perform actions with the goal of maintaining the life that the Universe has granted me. Through the life, liberty, logic, and reason granted to me by the Universe I turn that which the Universe has created in raw form and through action (labor if you will) into property that I use to maintain my life.

Since I believe I was created or caused to be created by the Universe, it stands to reason that no one, absent of the Universe explicitly informing me, has the authority to tell me what I can or can't do with my life, liberty, or property. Logic and/or reason tells me that if this is so, then so it should also be true that I have no authority over another's life, liberty, or property as well. It also says to me that if this isn't true, that if I do have authority over someone else's life, liberty, and property, they too must have the same authority over my life, liberty, or property. It can't be the latter, because they did not create me or cause me to be created, nor did I create them nor cause them to be created. Therefore logic and reason say, "I am I" and "you are you" and each of us is owner of just ourselves.

This brings up the second of my beliefs. I believe that it is objectively moral to say that "you should do unto others, as you would have them do to you." By "objectively moral" that it is a universal principle that applies to all non-mentally-deficient human beings at all times, in all places, and in all situations. To that "golden rule" I add the "silver rule" which states, "don't threaten force or initiate force." This too is also a "objective moral".

To summarize, everything I believe is guided by two principles, firstly, that no one holds a higher authority over my life, liberty, or property than I do, unless they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they created me, or caused me to be created. Second, "do to others that I would want done to me" along with "don't threaten force or initiate force". Every question can be answered by filtering it through these two principles with, barring faulty logic and reasoning or faulty premise, with 100 percent accuracy.

Changing the way you think....perhaps not?

In the past I've tried to convince people to change the way they think by entering into a discussion with them rather than just explaining what I believe in and why. Perhaps this may make them stop listening to what I'm saying and instead think about how to debate my every point. Going forward my blog will be written as a debate, but more as an explanation of what I believe and why it is I believe this way.

So, going forward look to this new writing style as I play with it and turn away from writing to create conflict and more toward peace through understanding who I am.

Regional Store Chain Takes Down American Flag

(Spoilers....you'll either agree or disagree with me after reading this)

Like most people out there, I have friends/family that work at a regional chain store. Scanning my Facebook feed today, I found an interesting post that talked about how at least two stores in this chain had taken down the American flag that had been flying for several years. The original poster initially posted that they were taken down because of a complaint by an individual from Iraq and asked their thoughts. Later on, they posted that the store took them down outside because they weren't part of the "sign package" for their store. So what?

To me, it's the Store's property, they can do with it whatever they please to do. If they decide today to have the flag of Germany, and then Tuesday, the flag of Greece, then on Thursday, the flag of Mexico, and on every third Sunday, the flag of the United States of America flown upside down, that's their call to make, unless it isn't a "free country" after all (spoilers....it isn't).

The thing that interested me was the comments people made, and to which I devote most of this post to. Two posters said that if the person from Iraq didn't like it, they should leave and go back to Iraq. I find this view a bit ignorant. It also shows their complete lack of historical knowledge. If they could go back to the 1600's how would they feel if instead of the native peoples inhabiting the Americas being welcoming to the settlers, who were trying to leave persecution for their beliefs, they were met with the "if you don't like it here, leave" rhetoric that today is put out there by "nationalists"? I think many people would not want to live the native lifestyle. Would they leave and go back to their place of origin?

What if the native people's decided that the lifestyle of the settler's wasn't acceptable. Would the settler's have left? History records the deaths and tragedies that the settler's caused toward the people of the native inhabitants seems to answer that question.

I also find that those who would agree that the National Socialist German Workers' Party flag should never been flown, especially, in front of people of the Jewish faith. That these same people are being hypocritical when it's their chosen flag being asked to be taken down for the same exact reason. That to other people the "United States flag" is a reminder of the men and women who murdered their friends and families.

Asking the flag of those who murdered your family members, or caused to be murdered, to be taken down at a business that is open to the public, isn't asking much, in my opinion. If the business had the policy of "no "Iraqis"", it might be more reasonable to tell them, I'm sorry, your business isn't wanted here, so no we will continue to fly the "American flag" as a warning to you that you aren't wanted here. I doubt this was the intention of the commentators, but that is the message they are broadcasting, if they realize it or not. Of course this is a public business, who wants everyone to feel welcome to shop there. If they have to take down a flag to make someone welcome to their store, I think it's appropriate. Isn't that also the reason why the "United Nations" flies all those flags too, to make everyone know they are welcome there?

Another commentator said this "...[I will] not so kindly remind them about the sacrifices our troops have made!!" in regards to the original poster's question, should it be found that the reason they took the flag down was because an "Iraqi" complained. The sacrifices that the "troops made" weren't for the "people" but for the "government" that sent them there. Too many people believe that the "troops" are there to protect them, and while they are protected to some extent, the sole purpose of the "troops" are to protect the "government" not the people. This is how it has been for the last several thousand years. In case you don't believe me, look back to Hurricane Katrina, and watch the "troops" taking, by threat of force, and actual force, weapons from the "people" in direct violation of the "Law". You may justify this action with the belief that "it was required to maintain the peace" or "to stop the looters" but this action also killed people because they couldn't stop the looters with the threat of force, or actual force. It was also against the "Law".

While we are on "the troops" and their so-called "sacrifices" what about their real crimes? Obviously murder is one of many. Many would retort, "this is war, there is no murder". This isn't war. War has rules. One of those rules is you declare war before you can engage in acts of war. Another is you don't invade someone's "sovereignty". What about their own "law",  they don't follow those and no one objects when it goes against their vested interest. For some examples the "law" that requires a "declaration of war" before engaging in combat, the various Treaties that require certain rules to be followed, specifically attacking only military targets, differentiating between military and civilian targets. Soldiers are accountable for their actions, including following illegal and unconstitutional orders. Of course, commanders are also responsible for the actions of their men. What about the highest authority who issues unconstitutional and illegal orders, aren't they also criminals as well?

One last commentator said "[p]olitical correctness is part of what's destroying this country." Really? Of all the much bigger things you could cite that are destroying "this country" you talk about "political correctness"? How about blind obedience to authority? How about violations of your rights as a human being that you just let happen everyday? How about people killing others and claiming that you gave them the authority to do so?

As an aside to those whom believe I'm anti-military or a military basher. I state the following because you'd never know otherwise.  My mother, whom served 25 years in the military, whom taught me everything I know about the military first hand, passed away recently and was given full military honors at one of the National Cemeteries.

I believe in a proper armed defense force. What we currently have isn't one. It's an armed offensive force, utilized by men and women who want people to murder, enslave, and destroy for them to help them enrich their own lives. When the men and women who are tasked to execute those orders fail to act properly, they are criminals. Those who question those orders when they violate the oath that each member takes before assuming the role of soldier, and are called traitors, and are jailed, such as Bradley Manning, are the real heroes. As Thoreau said, "[u]nder a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

Why do we need a standing congress?

    I was reading an article today that sparked a internal discussion within me and I thought I might share that. The question was 'Why do we need a standing Congress?'
   So, currently, we have a standing Congress in the United States. Going back to the beginning of things, the founding fathers made a rule, Congress must meet once a year to address the nation's needs. In their minds, at the time, it was thought that without such a rule that this group of 'representatives' wouldn't come together unless there was some pending need to do so. Ironically, the founding fathers thought we shouldn't have a standing military, but we should have a standing congress. An army of trained killers is just as bad I think as an army of rights violators.
   Congress has strayed so far from the imaginings of the founding fathers to become that which the founders they themselves fought so hard against. According to the founders, the purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of all the people. Today, however, congress feels the need the interfere with almost every aspect of our lives.
   Like a parent, Congress feels the need tell you where you can shop, what you can buy, where you can live, how you raise your kids, and everything else. But let's stop for a moment and recognize that 'Congress' is just a concept, it isn't a human being like your inappropriate Uncle Joe, it is just a collection of human beings. If they have a right to tell you what you can and can't do then you are their slave.
    Slavery is easily defined as 'one who has to bend their will to another', that of course fits what the individual people calling themselves Congress do every day isn't, they create their will and force you to bend to it or face having your property, liberty, or life taken from you.When they say to you, 'you can't use that kind of gun to protect your family because criminals use that kind of gun to hurt your family', what they are really saying is that you are a slave, and slaves can only do what we tell them they can do. Ironically, it's the criminals in that situation, that don't follow the individuals who call themselves Congress will anyway because they are criminals and will still use those guns to harm your family anyhow and you can't protect your family anyway. They paint "victim" on your forehead for all the criminals to see.
    I wonder if you, like myself, have ever examined the relationship between your and the individuals who call themselves Congress? So you have two individuals, A and B, who ask you to give them your endorsement. You can't give both of them it, so you have to choose one. You choose A, they are more inline with your personal beliefs then B is. So finally it comes time to count the votes and B wins the election and now B is your "representative". I find the idea of calling someone whom you didn't choose can't honestly be your "representative". To me it's like saying I want this real estate agent to represent my interests and someone comes up and gives me a different real estate agent.
    The difference between the individual "representing" your interests in Congress and the individual representing your interests in real estate, is you can fire them if they don't do a good job. But you think, you can recall an individual in Congress. Have you ever seen what it takes to recall an individual calling themselves Congress? You have to get a number of people in every single political subdivision of the "State" you live in sign a petition to recall that individual. It doesn't stop there, however, once you get that, then their is an official vote where everyone else decides if that person should be "recalled" and the number of people who are required to vote "yes" is some where in the fifty to sixty percent range. So, if you believe the individual claiming to represent you in Congress is doing something wrong and should be recalled, your view can be overridden by a simple majority of other individuals who are probably not paying attention to the facts anyhow.
    How is it that this individual claiming to represent you could in fact even represent you. Imagine you and your neighbor George have opposing opinions on one single idea but in all other ideas you agree. You and George force individual B, who claims to represent you in that collection of human bodies calling themselves Congress, to choose which side of that idea to represent. If he chooses George's side, then he isn't representing you is he? If he chooses your side of the idea, then he isn't representing George.
    Of course this would put any average individual who wants to represent people in to a quandary. Of course, the simple answer would be to just ignore you and George and represent they own side of the idea. This is what most of these individuals who claim to represent you who call themselves Congress do anyhow. You don't need to have to be a rocket scientist to see the facts staring you in your face to realize it. Take the issue called "Obama care", according to the media, most people opposed it. Most people told the individuals claiming to represent them and calling themselves Congress, to not vote for it. What did they do? They almost all voted in favor of it.
    Back to the question of "why" we need a standing Congress. The founding father's created the concept of Congress to protect life, liberty, and property, and as high on a pedestal as we put them, they were human beings capable of making mistakes. The idea of Congress can now be seen as a mistake since this collection of men and women have been found to be as much of a threat to the concepts of life, liberty, and property as any other potential threat. When you tell someone they are a Hammerer and you give them a hammer, after they run out of nails to hammer, they might start thinking that everything else is a nail.
    I personally am not a follower of the "Cult of Government", but if you are, and you value your life, liberty, and property, it would seem that the individuals in Congress are acting like the bullies. It may be a good idea to limit the amount of damage they can do by limiting the amount of time they have to do that damage or even better, only be called up when a big enough issue faces you and you need them to lead.

Ideas of Education

As a parent of a awesome eight year old, education of my progeny is always on my mind. Relying on my past experiences of education and learning, I dislike the idea and execution of  so called "public education". As someone who "has" had "ADHD" since age six, education was a horrible experience for me. I try to learn from those experiences to help my son have a happier experience and to actually learn things that are important to being a happy human being, not just some cog in a society formed to be the best cog he can be.

I, with help from my wife, educated our son from birth till 6 years old. We home schooled him for kindergarten and half of first grade. Due to economic reasons we had to enroll him into "public school" for the second half of first grade and then upon moving back to Alaska enrolled him into second grade. His experiences in first and second were better, due mostly to understanding teachers, but was still overall slightly rough.

The biggest problem was his behavior. He's impulsive and is learning to control those impulses. Not having had to control them, or learned to control them due to his home school environment, he is progressing as anyone could expect. Of course, his development in comparison to his peers is delayed because while they were learning to be a good cog in society, he was still allowed to be free to be impulsive. Now being presented with a more strict structure, he is adapting to it.

There are many alternatives to "education". I've tried the home school approach and while it may work for older children who know what they may want, I'm still exploring other options for educating him.

Currently I'm exploring "unschooling". The concept is a simple one. Rather then forcing a child to develop through curriculum, allow the child to learn through the natural process of child development. Taking games and play to teach things to children and allow them to self direct the process.

When I discuss with my son about his choices of education, I often show him that he has two options, the "regular school" option and a "home school" option. The only consistent complaint I hear from him on the idea of "home school" is that he won't get to play with his friends. So in designing the 'what to do next' phase of his education, I need to find him other children of the similar age group, or learning group so that in the between times in learning he has a small select group of children to play with.

My mind falls back to my experience when trying to solve this problem. Create a small group of third graders to come together on a regular basis to learn and play together. So that's what I'm looking at doing.