You are Here:
Greetings and Introduction

Author (Read 2 times)

Greetings and Introduction
« on: Today at 05:08:06 PM »
 

Volshebny

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 1
    Posts
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Greetings,

My name is Kevin Mann, but I'll commonly post by Volshebny (Russian for magic). I'm originally from South Carolina, but live in China atm.

Before I say that I'm ready to disband the federal government, I'm here to evaluate the efficacy of doing so. In our Second American Revolution, just removing the cabal and seeing them in orange jumpsuits is NOT the endgame, but rather the beginning of the revolution. As you lovers of freedom know, removing the cabal will only create a power vacuum. Who or what fills (or replaces) that vacuum needs to be discussed. The ramifications of The Great Awakening are immense due to the longevity of the previous regime. The "rabbit hole" is much deeper and far more extensive than most people can imagine.

I have attempted to listen to "Freedom" (the audiobook), but have failed to comprehend certain aspects of the system that you're endorsing. I have a few questions based upon a few presumptions.

When discussing a structure or design for the future, we should also discuss how people communicate and perceive the world around them. When I was in college I had a class called "Nuclear War" taught by Dr. Peter Sederberg. He started out by introducing himself and immediately asked a question: "What is the definition of stress?"

He rhetorically asked, "Why in a class titled "Nuclear War" am I asking about stress?" and he went into a diatribe about the loss of the Command and Control structures (the loss of Washington, D.C. or Moscow) in the event of a nuclear exchange. He said that we would spare these cities such a fate due to the decapitation of the C3 (this was in the days before computers - there was no C4). We would, of course, wish to keep the lines of communication open due to the field commanders when faced with such a dilemma have only ONE option - release EVERYTHING. This was at a time when the Soviets (yes, I'm really aging myself now) had close to 50,000 nuclear warheads and we had over 40,000 nuclear warheads. We could've jointly destroyed the world five-times over.

He went on to explain: "This is my definition of stress. Write this down... 'Those expectations not met.' " So if stress is caused from surprises (or the failure to deduce reality) then maintaining those communication channels is paramount. We would, of course, notify the Soviets weeks in advance, "We are planning an exercise and we will be moving about 20,000 troops within 100 miles of the Albanian border this coming June. They will be there for about 2 weeks and will be withdrawn immediately upon completion of the exercise." We would communicate both EXPECTATIONS and INTENTIONS and communicated with the Soviets that we expected the same from them.

If you think about it, regardless the relationship:  parent-child, teacher-student, lovers, siblings, spouses, etc. this paradigm is ideal. Open communications communicating both EXPECTATIONS and INTENTIONS reduces stress (I'll go so far as to say MINIMIZING stress) in humans. So if we eliminate the federal government I have a few concerns:

How do you codify behavior which is acceptable, legal, moral?

This raises a second dilemma based upon presumptions. What is acceptable?

If you believe as I do that people DO NOT know the difference between RIGHT and WRONG then codifying laws and jurisprudence still would require arbitration and mediation. The U.S. precedent system works because it defines the NORM.

Scientists have asked people faced with moral dilemmas how they would act/react in certain situations:  "If you found a wallet, what would you do?" In simple scenarios people describe in detail their actions. However, once you give more complicated situations involving multiple variables, people hesitate and ask, "What would he do?" or "What would she do?" In other words, the individual does NOT dictate to the society what is acceptable... what is the norm, but the society dictates to the individual what is acceptable... what is the norm. In other words, RIGHT and WRONG isn't fixed. RIGHT and WRONG is relative to whatever that society says it is... whatever they're willing to tolerate or accept. This is why our precedent system works. One hundred years ago in Smith v Jones it was decided this way... it was determined to be equitable or fair.

In your book, you didn't really discuss structure. It focused mostly on ideology.

I presume you've read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." He is the true father of Social Evolutionism (the idea of government evolution - which predates biological evolution). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oepcOYW9c3Y

According to Paine, too often people have confused Society with Government. He begins "Common Sense" by distinguishing between the two.

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher." (Thomas Paine "Common Sense")

Are laws necessary to communicate expectations? What about contracts? Wills and testament? Arbitration and mediation? How do you communicate norms or expectations to those within the society without laws? How do you resolve disputes? There is a reason James Madison went with the Republic as the model for government. He and others, although most of them were Deists, they still were not Atheists. Hence, Madison's statement: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

This raises yet another issue for me. You ask religious people if people are basically good or bad and those within the Judeo-Christian paradigm generally answer that men are basically bad. However, if you ask most non-religious people whether people are basically good or bad and they'll say basically good. Why the discrepancy?

"In the end days there will be wars and rumors of war." (among others)... In other words, Christian dogma teaches it... we corrupted god's universe... we're to blame for all the imperfection in a perfect god's creation. We're vile and deserve what we get. We need god. He is using this time to teach us a lesson that we're too corrupt and petty to rule ourselves - we need a king... a ruler. While we're so vile... and bad... WAR IS INEVITABLE... POVERTY IS INEVITABLE... everything bad we deserve. 

Of course, if you believe death is the beginning and not the end, then it makes it a little easier to raise an army. I may be more willing to lay down my life for the monarch if I believe in eternity... in heaven (eternal paradise).

This is why we have a secular government... supposedly. However, there is a dilemma. In America, people are incredibly charitable. I mentioned I live in China. Of course, in China we emulate America. The Chinese love America and love imitating almost any American fashion, style, genre, tradition, ideology, etc. They truly are embracing Capitalism right now. They are struggling with individualism right now... which I HATE. I love that they have loyalty to self, family, community, and nation. We Americans and British have devolved into a state of me, me, me... it's all about me. There is no loyalty to nation, community... and even family. However, the Chinese are still - for the most part - secular in their beliefs. There are temples, but not that many. They're not inundated with religion like we are in America. The only charities that most Chinese can name is the Red Cross. Suffice it to say, the Chinese are considerably less charitable than Americans - unless you're family. If you're family, they'll give you the shirt off their back.

Going down the rabbit hole you find that there is clear answers for almost everything if you're willing to look. Archaeologically speaking, Jean-Pierre Houdin, a French architect has taught us that if we adhere to Occam's Razor that many of the outlandish explanations for the pyramids of Giza seem silly and juvenile. There is a growing consensus that the Eye of the Sahara (aka the Richat Structure) may very well be the legendary City of Atlantis as mentioned by Plato.

But also going down the rabbit hole you may challenge yourself. There is a growing consensus that Jesus of Nazareth may be a literary creation... a compilation of various First Century messiahs. There is evidence to show that three First Century families: The Flavians of Rome, the Herods of Palestine and the Alexanders of Egypt conspired to create not one, but two religions. They created Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism in the First Century.