Tower of Babble

Desire.

2008-10-06T11:20:00.000-07:00

What have I desired? In the past I wanted nothing more than time to myself and time to enjoy the caress of the ground beneath my feet. In the past I craved for nothing but the comfort found in the crook of the trees and clumps of sod in my fingers. In this silly past I wanted no more than to breathe the air of evergreen. What have I desired other than a taste to end my rage?

When I glimpse the witching hour inside – there are moments of peace. There are moments of tranquility as if the moon flapped silently alongside the ghostly owls. There are moments frozen, when the light perched in the eves above my head. It is then that I do not act. Every action I take is a step towards self-satisfaction. This requires the removal of the things which dissatisfy me – otherwise I wouldn’t be acting now would I?

I have lusted for sleep without waking.

Beyond the groves of night; the thorn-ridden forest lurks, a mad and howling thing. It is outraged and stands to guard against reality. However; even the bracken couldn't save me. I like everyone else am forced to breathe fire, to turn to the maze of concrete and glass, to test the forges that churn the sludge, to watch the birds sitting high in their cages forced to lay so many golden eggs. Perfect rows and perfect moats, their uniformity is atrocious and defiling to the natural order of things.

How is it beautiful to live on top of one another squawking and screaming – fighting over so little space? How beautiful is a mile stretch of square-cut tiles compared to the glimpses of natural freedom residing in sparse parts of the world? How does this compare to the wild growth breaking through the gray. How does the sky look veiled in neon lights compared to a night naked with white splendor? How many or how little have heard the cicada’s and the crickets orchestra on summer evenings? I prefer this to the whistles and shrieks that happen within your castles of civilization. I prefer the crown of sunrise to the dreary cloaks of poison.

Yet, the ones who I am attracted to are drawn to the cities. That is where the people are marching in formation to the calls of fast food and the calls of corporation. I look on them in longing but know that this sick love triangle is unfit for me or them. I would fold them in my arms I would fold them to my mouth. They taste of iron and blood. Yet still I crave more, I feel beastly and foul in my addiction.

I rattle with every window by the railroad tracks. I tremble with every leaf in October winds. I shake with every pass by the underpass. If I paced by, you may catch a breeze of guaic wood warmed with vanilla. You’d realize that bergamot and mandarin had entered the building. The squalor of urban life has destroyed my sight. My eyes are fading so I wouldn’t dare to look upon you; I’d have to glare to see your face so I’d wander without a glance.

My silence is deafening. But the roar of despair in others is defeating. My most silent thoughts dictate the motion of my stars. I turn left – they flee to the right. I run forward and they stay in place. It’s only when I’m still that I can watch them dance. Have you stopped to stare? While my life is in constant isolation, my mind in constant journey; my existence is all my own. I’d have it no other way.

There I sit in the shelter of my curtains, so that the sun cannot glimpse me. Once there, hidden away in the safety of shade, I turned my gaze blurred by the terrifying beauty that lay just out of my reach.

There on the horizon of earth and sea, a line of gold. There on the sun scorched beach, the white foam writhes in agony. Have you ever watched the tide rush in? The mist yields to currents of air, muting the thunder of the water. You can watch the stampede of nature rise to the cliffs and then bound the other way. It is an altogether different sight – a different style of caged predator.

Here I shut the door readily, recalling the heat in its entire splendor. I slammed the door on the common life, I breathed in life of my own making. None could guess the ecstasy of such a dull-witted and silent monster thrilled to the brim with joy at the sight of beauty in the world.

Now I can only desire from a distance.

Now I can only want that which I cannot have.

Now I have but one craving.

At the end of my life I wish to say “I have not lost myself to the dominant dogma of this age.” At the end of my life I wish to look back and know that I chose to pace against the tyranny of life. I grasp that events are what wo/men make them. My aim is to hold absolute to the force within against the obstacles without.

Chuckles

2008-10-04T21:59:00.000-07:00

Haha! So true >_<

Where I Stand

2008-10-01T12:29:00.000-07:00

There are certain events in my life that eventually pushed me over the edge. There are certain things in my life that led me away from being just another circuit raving democratic utopian believing boy – to who I am today. Call me what you will, call me a Radical Libertarian, a paleo-right wing conservative, a rugged individualist, a right-wing anarchist, but most importantly know that I am a free-market anarchist.

I learned a few things that have been really useful as devices concerning people and relations.

It is best not to feel weak. It is best not to feel like one needs another. It is best to train yourself to ignore the failings in others because ultimately we all fail. In the end there is only one person who can love you and that’s you, only you. No one, I repeat, no one can wish more fervently to see the sun rise for you, like you.

Isolation is not correlative to independence or strength. Independence is ability to carry on regardless of how depressed one gets. Independence is strength to ignore any possible void one could feel by not having someone else to lean on. Your obligations are to yourself. Take care of yourself, pick yourself up, don’t bitch, just do it. If you don’t – one day, it may kill you.

One day, when your love fails, you won’t waste away. One day when you fail, you’ll look around, bleary-eyed but with full knowledge that the sun rises tomorrow. In short: you can learn a lot about yourself when you become homeless.

People wonder why I can hate the idea of government. I’ll put it simply from my history.

Where was your altruistic social ‘safety net’ when I needed it? Where was the providence of public shelters when I found out that I had to be in an age bracket to have a roof over my head for a night? Why were the shelters located so far from each other? Why were the shelters forced to turn people away? Where was shelter to be had if I had to check in to the building repeatedly throughout the day while I was attempting to make a living or find a job? Where was food to be had when it was easier to dig through a dumpster or get some from behind restaurants from workers?

Why was my welfare check so late and of so little worth that I lost my ability to save any money to get a studio let alone feed myself? I repeat where was this government social safety net when I needed it? It’s a joke and it accomplishes nothing.

Sure, socialists can say – we need to give people welfare at the least. But it accomplished nothing for me. The money barely allowed me to subside. Welfare kept me on welfare.

Government upholds a disgusting, loathsome cycle of poverty and despotism. People eventually become stuck in the cycle, herded chattel unable to do anything but become less than human.

How was I to present myself to get a job, when my clothing fell apart? I had to wash my clothes in sinks at gas stations and public restrooms. Then I had to dry them out underneath the hand dryers making sure my work presentable clothing didn’t wrinkle as I did so. Do you know how it feels to have other people look at you in disgust when you’re in a public restroom at a mall washing your clothing? Do you realize how many hours it takes to sufficiently accomplish this? Do you know what it feels like to want to be truly invisible? Why don’t the shelters have washing machines and dryers for the homeless so that they may be able to dress themselves and smell presentable enough for interviews? Why don’t they have these simple commodities so that humans don’t have to feel like freak shows? Your social government programs are a fallacious disgusting, vile, and disturbing if they believe themselves to be of charity. Worse – these programs fail just like educational standards of public schools. To add insult to injury – the average citizen pays for this.

The average citizen pays for this parasite. The average citizen pays for this cancer.

I found more help from handouts than from any social service. I got more roofs over my head from guys who expected little of me compared to the shelters who wanted time frames, sobriety, and religious fervor. At least I could be fucked up while I spent the night in some filthy apartment and get food.

You who like to write me daily are interesting creatures.* Most of it I trash because I won’t dignify you with a response. I’m indeed amused that so many people like to take time out of their day to let me know how they think of my ideas. Most take to insulting my theories, most take to letting me know how childish my thoughts are. I’ve heard every insult in the book I think, and still some of you are repeat offenders! You’re laughable.

You wouldn’t dare presume I came to believe in market anarchism without having dwelled on the problems of society for at least half of my pathetically short life. You wouldn’t dare presume I put more thought into these ideas than picking up a book and ‘getting inspired’. You wouldn’t dare presume I’ve read everything about it hoping to find some alternative.

You probably wouldn’t presume I’ve poured my soul into the works of Bakunin, Proudhon’s, Emma Goldman, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Max Stirner, Etienne de la Boetie, Wendy McElroy, Erick Mack, Murray Rothbard, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Frederic Bastiat, David and Milton Friedman, Voltairine de Cleyre, Dyer Lum, Kropotkin – do you fathom my perspective now? The list goes on, but name drops are hardly the issue here.
The point is – I’ve invested much thought into this and hence why I am the way I am.

So if I’m so displeased with the world – where do I fit in? If I please to call myself a Market Anarchist in ideology, in all practicality I must adhere to being a Radical Libertarian. I would have to sell myself short. I would have to return to the fold of blind concepts. If I become a statist, a good quiet little citizen, I must continue to believe in voting, where I practice forcing others to live according to my system of belief on an issue if my vote ends up winning. If I indeed want something of my will passed, I must vote for one of the two main parties. I must believe in war, I must believe in welfare – which pushes everyone in poverty to their knees – then removes their feet below the ankle. I must believe in paying annually for the rest of my life to an entity that strips us all of dignity. I must turn the other cheek when I see a homeless person. I must ignore my past. I must pretend that my life is considerably different than theirs.

As you see, I cannot ignore these simple things. As you see, I cannot accept anything less than the extreme.

I cannot help but look into the midnight inside. It quakes, shudders and moans. It is far from logical, but I look inside and find that rage and hope to harness it as the Furies did. Everyone has a cavern inside of them, a place no one else ventures to dig. Inside the placidly dressed businessman one can imagine the pain he feels in his fingers, one can almost taste the despair of the 5-9 knowing he is his own prison.

Anarchism embodies freedom of the ‘soul’, the ‘mind’ and the ‘body’. If the current system is truly justice – then yes I would have it ravaged and disassembled. I would destroy it all. But first – before the destruction of everyone else’s beliefs, I would have everyone believe something other than what is force-fed to them. I would have people simply believe in themselves. I would have them believe they could do without the chains of government. I know with all my heart and my mind – that none of my most fervent hopes will come to pass. But I believe. If you wish to find common ground with me, now you know where I stand.

Be Proud of Government

2008-09-26T13:34:00.000-07:00

What does one mean by state? I'll try and play devil's advocate. Let's say I'm a fan of the state. Let’s say I’m a Statesman. This bears down to a few key points in ideology. To spare people from having to grind their gears I’m going to play a game of truth. Be honest, if you believe in the political party, you believe in most of this deep down. Go ahead and admit it. It’s ok to be a tyrant. Be proud of your beliefs! Better that than lie to yourselves and others.

As a Statesman I believe in principle that an individual and/or band of individuals needs to invade the territory and rights of other individuals or bands of individuals so that they may be represented according to whim. If one goes beyond his bounds of permission (freedom) than he needs to be punished for not abiding by the rules I would like to enforce on him.

Let’s be honest, as a Statesman (better known as a Republicrat.) I believe in an unquantifiable, sans-qualitative 'majority' vote where people attempt to pass their rights to me so that I may represent them. Because I'm representing them I choose not to believe that people pay for what they get. I believe that people must pay in taxes for services whether they want those services or not. I believe that my aggression which is a violation of equal liberty necessitates confiscation of a wo/man's earnings to pay for their protection which they didn't necessarily ask for - but are going to get anyway. I believe that people must foot the bill for violations of their intrinsic rights to freedom.

As an honest Statist I confess that there is no moral obligation – only an obligation to society. They are obligations because I obviously cannot consciously nor voluntarily assume I can discover my own moral fiber without being told what's good and what's bad. No, murder, theft and property crimes aren't self-evident. I believe that we must give up the individual 'rights' and bow in service to those who would protect me from myself and those sneaky plotting neighbors.

I believe in non-utilitarian methods of dominion. I don't believe in expediency, knowledge, epistemology, or science. I choose to ignore that history reveals that humanity has made a slow and painfully gradual discovery that a free society necessitates a free individual. I choose to ignore that advances in technology especially on the grounds of internet empower individuals more naturally than aggregates. I choose to ignore that emergent social interaction is exemplified by people voluntarily associating with each other on the internet and cannot do so in person. I choose to ignore that decentralization and entropy of my force on others is natural law and justice at work.

I choose to not adopt a live and let live approach. I choose instead to transgress the rights of others because I know better. I choose to use coercion and force and I choose to say its all for liberty.

I choose to believe that people cannot privatize the provisions of energy, waste management, law and order, nor banking as they are currently monopolized by government.

As a statesman I believe in welfare and warfare. I believe that the Constitution is outdated so I need to come up with fundamental social laws that can be reduced to habits in and outside the bedroom.

To let you know where I irreducibly stand as your representative, I’m going to counter Proudhon word for word. I believe that people need to be watched, inspected, spied, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, sized, censured, commanded; by beings who have neither title nor knowledge nor virtue. I believe that every operation every transaction, every movement noted, registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, indorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, and corrected.

I believe that for the sake of general interest, that people need to be drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, exhausted, hoaxed, robbed; then upon the slighted resistance, at the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, annoyed, hunted down, pulled about, beaten, disarmed, bound, imprisoned, shot, judged, condemned, banished, sacrificed, sold, betrayed and to crown all, ridiculed, derided, outraged and then dishonored.

"Nevermore."

2008-09-24T13:47:00.000-07:00

I feel as the Raven; a herald unwanted. I hope through persistence, hopefully, I’m not forgotten. It is ever the bearer of bad news who is demonized, who is mocked and verily, patronized.

”Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil! – prophet still, if bird or devil! –
Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted –
On this home by Horror haunted – tell me truly I implore –
Is there - is there balm in Gilead? – tell me – tell me, I implore!”

Bailouts and stimulus checks, and other interventions made by government are not balms of Gilead. The only solution:

Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

And what do I mean by crying nevermore?

Imagine an entity sending false hope to finance institutions about future consumer demands. The owners then, being assured of bail, expand in anticipation of additional future consumer demand for services and goods which in fact don’t exist. The owners then come to the frightening development that demand has not materialized. This is when the recession (market correction) occurs.

The net worth begins to be revealed and foreign investments withdraw support. The many companies assured of insurance by bail out are in danger of crippling the entire country: so then more intervention is needed to obfuscate the danger of net worth being revealed. This way foreign investors keep their hands in the cookie jar. What happens though, is that the bail out continues in a way that doesn’t solve the problem but merely keeps things running. Things keep running, including everything that is parasitic and a drain on the economy.

The intervention delays the inevitable correction. It makes the correction worse by destroying net worth. It makes the correction worse by destroying actual wealth.

Merely this and nothing more.

Inflation accomplishes the exact same crime. Inflation is not prices rising; it isn’t gold and silver jumping all over the place. Inflation occurs when the purchasing power of the currency is weakened. How is this accomplished?

Imagine that we have 1 dollar per person circulating in the economy. Let us then say the net worth of that 1 dollar is actually 1 dollar. Now let us say that we print off another dollar per person in hopes that people will spend it which in theory ‘stimulates’ the economy. (Stimulus check anyone? I’ll take a rain check thank you.) So we now have 2 dollars per person circulating. How much do you think they are worth when put together?

Technically: the 2 dollars per person is worth the original 1 dollar per person. But it did get some of us to spend. This means the currency has been reduced to 50 cents of real value. Prices rising in consumables and other goods are indicative of a market’s reaction to a dollar which lost value – thus prices go up.

The central banks and the fed work cooperatively to print off money which only serves to make people feel safer in misallocating capital in hopes for future profit. You see its not just Wall Street who is the criminal. When government officials babble about eliminating the root cause – they aren’t talking about themselves – which is a pity.

This it is and nothing more.

Now let us look to the incredibly stupid, pathetically and fundamentally idiotic move to ban short-selling. When stock becomes too high for a speculator, he shorts the stock and pushes it back down. If stock appears undervalued he buys shares thus pushing the price back up. The prices are now being hidden because of the ban.

But the problems don’t stop there. Speculators aren’t the only ones who short stocks, hoping to gain from this. People short stock to limit exposure to downward price slides.

Disaster Scenario: A company sells a credit default swap on an investment bank. This is an insurance contract. A default on the bank with its own bonds will trigger the swap to give a payout. The very existence of the credit default swap allows for investors to be more willing to buy the bonds of that bank. The investors have insurance against a potential default.

Imagine an insurance company issues a large amount of credit default swaps on that investment bank. Rumor has it that the investment bank is carrying ‘toxic’ mortgage-backed assets. The shares would plummet and the investment bank would find short-term funds hard to find for continued operation. Its bonds would default and the insuring firm might suffer losses because the credit default swaps were triggered.

Protection from share price volatility for the insurance company can be attained by shorting a sizeable chunk of said shares of the investment bank. So the insuring company is now hedged against sudden drops in shares. Any losses to be had by a credit default swap are offset by the gains made in short sales.

The SEC has removed one of the market’s methods on containing risk. The firms vulnerable to this credit crisis are unable to find buyers of their bonds, thus not able to raise capital. Capital is what is needed to fight this.

Only this and nothing more.

People have a short memory. Last year in fall, a correction was beginning to take place. We saw prices in commodities fall, we saw stocks diminish. However; the Federal Reserve and central banks worked together to prevent the functioning of a market correction. The fall of prices stopped. Everyone thought this was a recovery, but really – the consumer was hit the hardest. Oil reached a new time high. Over the next year the Federal Reserve lowered target funds rate seven times increasing our money supply (inflation.) There is a count of about 30 interventions made by the fed within one year and people still insist we have a free market. We have a count of 30 interventions within one year and people blame the free market!?. These are crimes of intervention. These interventions comprised of provision of treasury securities (for which there actually is a market) to investment firms in exchange for the said firms’ mortgage-backed securities (for which there is obviously no existing market).

Despite the criminal intervention which led us to where we are, the natural laws of market equilibrium (or disequilibrium) are not to be ignored. A brain dead easy way of seeing a market reaction to all of this lies in watching gold. The nationalization, the socialization and the intervention allowed for gold to jump a $100 per ounce in 24 hours.

Logic follows that government and central banking intervention through tools like inflation and taxation actually destroy savings. Says Law holds that more savings are needed to create wealth for future investment and that inflation and taxation are nothing more than theft. To this I respond:

Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

Absurdity

2008-09-22T14:01:00.000-07:00

What is the Absurd? It is, as may quite easily be seen, that I, a rational being, must act in a case where my reason, my powers of reflection, tell me: you can just as well do the one thing as the other, that is to say where my reason and reflection say: you cannot act and yet here is where I have to act [...] The Absurd, or to act by virtue of the absurd, is to act upon faith [...] I must act, but reflection has closed the road so I take one of the possibilities and say: This is what I do, I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection.[4]
– Kierkegaard, Søren, Journals, 1849

Yesterday, out of the blue an old friend, once a best friend, called me up. She invited me to her church and youth group. Now whatever it may be she has turned herself completely around (thank goodness.) She was spiraling into drug induced frenzy. Yet, there she was: substance free, actually happy, and married to a wonderful guy, surrounded by very pleasant people. I accepted her invitation out of respect for her and with no thoughts to worship. I have a feeling she wishes the best for me in her own way – so I can accept that. But while I believe there is a higher power, I do not believe it is that power’s will for us to beg for help. I think it laughable that man can ‘know’ god. It is the nature of our minds that we see but one facet from one window. We are an incapable species if we pride ourselves omniscient enough to see the god construct that is reality, which is the wheel of the cosmos.

I believe it is up to each of us to find a suitable path. If some choose not to, so be it. If some choose to seek, so be it. It is not an imperative to seek meaning but it is admirable. Through logic we find that morals are either made through leaps of faith or through each subjective individual viewpoint. I do not believe the bible is capable as a guideline due to humanity’s inherent flaws. So while I felt estranged by the entire service due to their methods of faith, I understood them and appreciated their passion.

How does one endure their self-developed defiance of reality? I’m sure that if I attend more of these services that the question will come eventually as to how I can be so solitary. Despite reality, one accepts they must live it. One cannot hope that imploring any higher power will bring about a relief. One cannot hope to ask another. He must pick himself up despite the odds. One must seek the power within against the obstacles without and tread against the grain –

“With all the tortures of hell if so it must be.” – Kierkegaard, Søren, The Sickness Unto Death.

In accepting reality we then have three options, or rather, three roads to take.

1.) Though we confess life may not be worth living, we reject the notion that suicide is a viable option. Escaping existence empowers nobody. It is most absurd to reject the absurd life.
2.) We may consider the existence of a higher power, but we reject the notion of philosophical suicide through the utilization of prayer.
3.) We accept reality as absurd and beautiful. The only way to craft meaning is through utilization of our choices to lend opportunity which may (or may not) give meaning to life.

This last option thus gives us freedom. The absurdist philosophy if realized maintains that the universe is subjective and not objective. This freedom exists because we can then find our own way for meaning and purpose rather than viewing reality as one of philosophical absolutes. The individual becomes a sovereign existence, another facet to the entire existence.

Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suidice. – Camus, Albert, Myth of Sysiphus and Other Essays.

Historically we are a people who sought meaning. Some approach the nihilist or existential road. Thus their life is paved with thoughts that life is meaningless (I find them a bit silly). Then there is a significant portion who wishes to fill that void, most with a belief in a higher power outside of reality. Hence, the ability to question purpose behind god. But since I believe that the god construct is reality, and reality is absurd, that placing faith in higher powers outside of the realm immediate to us is sillier still.

In this window of the world I am free at least in mind. I must reject determinism and argue that indeterminism is the only compatible notion to freedom.

Free-will exists. The individual is able to take any possible course of action with any given circumstance. Since the popular god construct allows for only a few closed options, I must refuse this version of metaphysical faith. Since I am free to think otherwise, the idea is that even my mind overrides physical causality. I suppose I’ve hit mind-body dualism.

Free-will exists. If people are to truly be responsible and accountable for their actions, then, the stereotypical god construct runs counter to this. To accept the typical god construct we all may commit something that was pre-determinate to even murder, and then say: “The devil/god made me do it.”

Free-will exists. If we realize that ‘will’ is not free due to its confines of causality; but there is a phenomenon acting behind ‘will’ which is free.

It is the nature of a coward and a fool who says – I am fated to be. It is the strong wo/man who states I make my own fate. Let the enemies of the soul quake at humanities natural freedoms.

Conventional Stupi- I mean Wisdom..

2008-09-21T13:12:00.000-07:00

Hopefully I can at least teach someone something about the financial crisis at hand. As it stands my thoughts are hardly my own. My thoughts go hand in hand with quite a few economists and quite a few journalists. I merely relay observances in such a disgustingly simple, disturbingly generalized, and woefully short rant as to hope to achieve a listener.

We’ve proven ourselves ignorant of fiscal policies and their ramifications. Mainstream news promotes only the most popular agenda and depicts myth alongside fact. The apparent problem is that people pay attention to the easiest ‘facts’ and never for their lives are willing to dig into the implications stated. Remember the idea of separation of state and church? What about the separation of market and state?

The Austrian theory of the business cycle makes clear a distinction between primary and secondary depressions. Turmoil and trouble in the financial sector is indicative of a secondary depression. However; the cause is the primary depression. This primary depression is a distortion in our mixed-economy’s capital allocations system.

Ignoring theory, the fact is our country is burdened with a vast divide between consumption and production. A completely banal and simplistic read of Adam Smith’s Wealth of the Nations would help even the village idiot to gain a bit of insight on this dilemma.

The problem is monetary policy and largely, fiat “out of nothing” currency. It is the nature of nothing to be nothing. A dollar with any purchasing power means that our imports are of a substantially lower cost. A dollar like ours makes imports costlier. Our reliance on monopoly money has proven the case for the imperative to return to gold backing so I’ll move on.

Trade imbalance is only a symptom. If for example we lower interest rates (the price of time) thanks to government, which are aimed at boosting consumption, we exacerbate the true issue and elongate the business downturn. Instead of consumption driven goals, we are in a state that savings and fewer imports are a necessity. Says Law holds true here. Savings and not spending, creates wealth for an economy.

The information is out there. People knew in the early 80’s that there was an issue with our system, that there was a discrepancy between lending and production. People knew the inevitable downturn would be of a highly significant nature. Downturns are natural.

So let us fast forward a quarter of a century. The expanding monetary policy and its bosom buddy, the bailout guarantee, have disrupted capital gains allocation. Because bailouts were guaranteed people didn’t practice any restraint and the competition was forced to also play the same game in order to bother playing in the same field. Guess what? They can all play dirty because at the end of the game, government, the fed, and the taxpayer work together to bail the criminals out. Logically does this mean we should continue this parental behavior?

Luckily there are economists who are certain that an increase in savings, a reduction of imports and decrease in consumption are a moral imperative for our nation. Luckily debt accumulation has peaked (though our nation is willing to figure out ways of increasing it). Luckily our crisis has reduced foreign creditors’ willingness to extend further loans which would only increase our debt. This is called a market solution.

The socialization of the mortgage market and our recent bailouts will reveal disastrous effects soon enough. Goldman-Sachs economists are speculative and cheery that this will only ride out for about 3-5 years. The pain has only begun and we’re all masochists.

It was Murray Rothbard’s great achievement, his magnum opus to reveal that the Great Depression occurred because it was manufactured. Manufactured and prolonged by policy implementations meant to prevent the cyclical business down-turn. It is the nature of history that people did not pay any attention to the 1920’s business down turn and realize that it was over within 18 months because the market was free to correct itself.

The conventional stupidity is that the Great Depression was some disaster that government and the fed needed to fix. The most disturbing view is that of Bernanke and his notion that inflation (thus theft of the highest order on the people) is the hero of the day.

This is the largest socialist operation in our history. You’d think we’d learn from our mistakes:

What should have happened in 1929 is precisely what should happen now. Let the price system prevail! The government should completely remove itself from the course of action and let the market reevaluate resource values. That means bankruptcies, yes. That means bank closures, yes. But these are part of the capitalistic system. They are part of the free-market economy. What is regrettable is not the readjustment process, but that the process was ever made necessary by the preceding interventions.

Let me state this very plainly: I do not believe for one second that if the government fails to nationalize Freddie and Fannie, the world as we know it will come to an end. Those who are saying so are trying to scare the population, the same as with every other major demand by the regime. It was the same with NAFTA, the WTO, the war on terror, the war on bird flu, the nationalization of airport security, and everything else.

- Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Emergent Social Interaction

2008-09-20T17:05:00.000-07:00

Individualism By Any Other Name

I’ve been holding a rather interesting discussion on the prospects for privatized ownership of land and services. Spencer Heath addressed this notion by concluding that society could only outgrow slavery to the state by utilizing land properly through free-market methods. His methods were in opposition of the Georgian ideal that land should not and could not be owned (a collectivist scheme by any other name.)

In the book “Politics versus Proprietorship,” he hinted that political governance was indeed an enemy of the market. The notion of ownership in Heath’s book is much like the stewardship of wealth. “To own was to owe.”

Were socio-economic relations so poor under pre-Norman England? What is interesting is that this conception borders Gandhi’s muse of wealth except takes it to a present day setting (neo-feudalism). The nobility who comes to own the land through natural rights is in effect, servants to the people who wish to live on it. In order to benefit: one must ensure beyond a doubt that the tenants of the land are happy.

Murray Rothbard succinctly addressed this notion:

The Heathian goal is to have cities and large land areas owned by single private corporations, which would own and rent out the land and housing over the area, and provide all conceivable "public services": police, fire, roads, courts, etc., out of the voluntarily-paid rent. Heathianism is Henry Georgism stood on its head; like George, Heath and MacCallum would provide for all public services out of rent; but unlike George, the rent would be collected, and the land owned, by private corporate landlords rather than by the government, and the payment therefore voluntary rather than coercive. The Heathian 'proprietary community' is, of course, in stark contrast to the scruffy egalitarian commune dreamed of by anarchists of the Left.

To better illuminate why this is not a form of tyranny by another name Spencer Heath:

To obviate the essential tyranny (coercion) of political administration the proprietary authority, suitably organized, must extend its jurisdiction, and thus its revenues, by itself supplying police and other community services without coercion, out of its own revenues and properties, and thus raise its own values and voluntary incomes.

In anarcho-capitalism it becomes apparent that fees and dues for police and courts would develop towards specialization. It is obvious that one landlord would be unable to apprehend all the needs of each area of society so thus would rely on a codependent competition. In other words, more lords of jurisdiction would develop, this process eventually creating guilds of competitive for-profit services. This specialization due to its privatization means that private ownership must also accept its losses. Thus why it is hard to take advantage of others as is possible through our current political system. The essential truth is, people are not reliant on the market. The market needs the people.

Heathian anarchism is thus a proprietary community containing multi-tenant properties such as hotels and apartments, shopping centers, places of entertainment such as parks and even educational districts for schools. The concept of multi-tenant property is the opposite of traditional real-estate development. It would be in the landlords best interests to provide community service and other pleasing luxuries in order to hope that people would wish to live on their land and benefit from an active participation in maintaining land value and voluntary rent.

While history is a subjective matter, the empirical information available reveals that there is a growing population and land is limited. The private single-family household is one that is quite new, but also a passing phase. Multi-tenant income property, shopping malls and the like, are a development of the past half-century. This approach should eventually infiltrate the public sector accepting the burden of water, waste management, energy and maintenance. Different jurisdictions of property would compete in a business-like manner on how best to provide protection from crime. This is a distinct improvement over monopolistic government if one understands the fundamentals of the market and service.

And while it is obvious that this build isn’t the standard proprietary zone defense formula, there is no doubt, that needs must be met – and the competing security agencies would develop methods that sell best to the consumer.

It is not enough to look into the means of land and its utilities eventually becoming a servant of the private sector. We must look at the eventual decentralized powers of technology and its inevitable passage to the hands of the common man. It has been the mistake in the past to assume the government would be the only entity capable of controlling technology. But because of the wealth of information available for this argument (and its eventual straying from the origins of the topic at hand) I must continue this at another time – with a tighter focus.

What Nonsense?

2008-09-19T18:59:00.000-07:00

What Nonsense?

Freedom is indeed personal. But is it indeed true that my very act of defending a concept achieves the very opposite of what I intend? What of the cost of remaining silent?

How then would I explain to those who are ignorant, that anarchists do not practice the business of preaching foolish and wild acts? The apolitical philosophy has nothing in common with violence or a state of chaos. The state of existence to which I hold can never come about without it first entering the heads of the common mind. I cannot allow myself to be defenseless to misconceptions without first arming myself to the teeth with logic.

So in accepting that my ideal cannot come to pass, I accept that people who are nothing more than nihilists will be called anarchists. I accept that people would call me a fool whether or not I can dance circles of logic around their blustering protest. Fate dictates that every new idea be blasphemy. Then when change begins to take place, the sins of the previous order are blamed at our footsteps. This is old news.

So yes, I believe in the necessity for a displacement of our current system of injustice. So long as man rules man there will never be peace. I believe in humans and their worth over the empty words and laws which man has currently made and will eventually make. I would call for a complete disintegration of the principle for authority. If for this you condemn me, continue to call me a fool. I never said that I believed we will change our ways. I only believe that we must for the very notion of liberty to exist. Until then, I let my thoughts pour.

Lysander Spooner's Dilemma

If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.

On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as injustice. If there be no such natural principle as honesty, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor can ever exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist[…] - Lysander Spooner, "Natural Law," Section V

Onus probandi

Logic dictates that the burden of proof must be placed on any positive claim. Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. “The necessity of proof lies with he who complains.” A common misconception is that the anarchist (whether or not they are a collectivist or individualist) has the burden of proof.

However; both statists and anarchists make positive assertions about social organization. Both parties agree that markets should exist. The statist is forced to make an extra burden of proof. That social organization needs to be constructed on such a massive scale.

The statist is incapable of shedding this extra burden once they admit they make a positive claim. In this, we naturally win.

Let’s move on.

Geometric Argument

Let us assume there are three people on a deserted island. A third person happens to have access to a larger portion of resources. A majority rule is enacted and the two work together to reallocate the third lucky person’s extra resources. This is taxation. Now, replace those three people, with millions of people and you see where I’m going. Now that is what I consider organized crime of a massive scale.

Freedom's Imperative
by Jim Davies

Proving that Market Anarchy is the only justifiable organizational system by demonstrating that self-ownership is axiomatically true and that Market Anarchy is the only organizational system built on that premise.

The Problem of Collectivist Obligation

(1) One or more of three possibilities must be obtain:

* Morality does not exist.
* Morality is determined by the individual (realism, subjectivism, etc).
* Morality is determined by the collective (autocracy, utilitarianism, etc).

(2) Morality necessarily exists, because:

* Morality is axiomatic (cannot be denied without direct contradiction).
* Morality is a necessary fact for all moral agents.

(3) Either morality is determined by the individual moral agent, or the collective, or both. (from 1 and 2)

(4) Collectivist obligation is inter-subjective relative to the collectivist belief system.

(5) Any moral obligation towards the collective would have to be demonstrated objectively (i.e. as a fact that exists independently from the group).

(6) It is impossible to go from inter-subjective propositions to objective propositions, as any given sum or network of inter-subjective propositions must still remain grounded to the belief system.

(7) It is impossible to justify the passage from collectivist obligation to moral obligation. (from 4, 5 and 6)

(8) Morality cannot be determined by the collective. (from 7)

(9) Morality can only be determined by the individual moral agent. (from 3 and 8)

Hence:

Moral Argument

A moral principle or system, or a political principle or system, is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application (to locations, times or persons). Can also be called "universality." Argument made by Murray Rothbard in his book The Ethics of Liberty.

Gun control is invalid because it sets one principle for one group (state exploiters)- you can have guns- and another principle for the rest of us- you can't have guns. Taxation is invalid because theft remains criminal in all other instances. If it is just for some people to steal in the name of the "common good", then it should be good for everyone. And so on.

I Confess..

2008-09-18T12:46:00.000-07:00

I cannot help it. I’ve argued heatedly and I’ve held the coldest of discourse. When one mocked me or made preconceived notions of the love for my theory – I tempered it with heavy-laden logic. I perceive it is this logic that is indeed, heavy; indeed leaden. For while it is one thing to utterly confound my opposition to my beliefs with wit and intellect – it is another to completely lose them by attacking with disregard for emotions and attention spans. Once boredom in your opponent is conceived, the point of displaying the thought (no matter how strong the argument) is fruitless.

That person will never again wish to hear another ounce and entrench themselves deeper in the ways they find comfortable. It is the nature of those with the mental faculty for satisfaction to despise those who are mentally active.

I will attempt to infuse much of my own personality into the subject at hand, giving reasons sufficient to myself. I hope that personal reasons coupled with logic-ridden generalizations may help illuminate that the political is indeed personal. There are many who would protest that I stick to cold rationale only. In the past I’d agree with those sneering philosophers. (They make the best of comrades). However; this protest seems more borne from the hatred for emotional appeal than is within reason.

We are human. The surface is comprised of logic. The bulk beneath is raw ore. To attack emotional appeal – one must fairly attack the logical portion of our beings.

Always I’ve maintained a craving. This craving grew in direct opposition to conventionality and tradition. This craving evolved to disagree with fads and fashion. This hunger grew for something that wasn’t force fed down the throat. This taste spat out the spun out details of elections and wars. It digested subjective history on administration and facts on bureaucracy. It was pleased at first. But I grew hungry to know: what about the people? Who paid for all these wars? What did they say in their homes those who never fought? Wasn’t the Civil War predominantly one for growth of Federal Government and not one of slavery? The dissatisfaction grew only when I was but eight years old.

I grew older and the disgust bloomed with it. I grew further angry that life was a never ending tale of bureaucracy. I learned fury when I looked on my classmates in quiet disbelief – seeing them for the cogs they were. I grew angry knowing, our education was one which meant for us to fit in with society. What of an education for us where the only notion was to enrich our heads with knowledge? Knowledge: not for the sake of upholding traditions which stagnate. Knowledge: not for the sake of keeping things as they are. Knowledge: not for the sake of making the same mistakes repeatedly.

Wisdom fed to us not for remedy! Lessons to nourish and strengthen the individual. The problem was never how to find a way to relieve distress, to feed poverty or shelter the homeless. The problem was never to make people codependent sops begging on the kindness and charity of others. The solution was to find a way for everyone to stand on their own feet.

I once believed that the Constitution could possibly protect almost anything (concerning the people). I loved the ideals for our country. Long thought, and a war between reason and lesson allowed me to conclude that the victory of the political in our great nation – was a husk. People believed rights on paper gave them their rights. Finally, the idea of a majority rule was found to be nothing more than a minority rule. The only desirable notion of society is one, where no one is compelled against their will to live or abide by a rule made with vested interest.

It was clear to me from the start that in order to attain actual liberty, one must have liberty in access to resources. Hence my interest in economics and the trade of values. So then what were those resources? How would a commoner in this era vulgaris come upon them when they are withheld and denied?

Motives are one thing, but everyone disagrees on the execution thereof. One common theme is ownership and possession of land.

American-borne Socialists would plead that land become property of state. The land would then be divvied out by committees representing a majority of local communities. The state would exercise theft on a large-scale, redistributing surplus to those who wouldn’t produce as much. The idea is old – through legal enactment, they wish to confiscate estates and declare the property for all.

This wasn’t satisfactory (though it was charming at first to my more compassionate side.) It was a reason I thought myself democratic at the tender age of 14. The social principle of equality is such that I couldn’t help but love it. I grew to abhor it within a few years.

In the end the weakened individual must still get permission to work. The individual would still be a chew toy for a mass of regulations and bureaucracy. While material comfort became more easily a ‘right’ to all, there was a delegated power assuming it knew best how everyone should live. Once that weak individual found labor, they would find that it wasn’t anything they truly wished to do. No, they would be demanded to work jobs that were deemed most necessary for society. This design is exceedingly simple – and Socialists are praised for its apparent simplicity.

However; by channeling efforts through the current system – they must confront the judicial power. Reforms of weaker character have done the same in the past. It seems certain that a socialist reform for redistribution of the land would then be deemed unconstitutional. And we’d be back to the drawing board. It was about this time, my conclusion was democracy was non-existent in our country. Rather we were a republic by definition. I began to entertain right-wing understandings.

So why anarchism? (Market Anarchy to be exact.) The title bears to mind violent ignoramuses, disturbers of the common people; disturbers of the peace. I could through a process of elimination muse on the different economic systems and reveal why each is quite unsatisfactory for me. I can just as easily filter through each form of anarchism with its secondary natures of communism, socialism, individualism, primitivism, syndicalism, pacifism and all other contrived ‘isms’. I’d be then raising a debate that those who identify as anarchists are more than willing to debate about. It is apparent that one form of anarchy is neither correct nor ideal as it then leads to another form of governance.

It seems to me to be a question of wealth but most importantly: its exchange.

It is the question of the nature of ‘value’ and the necessity for a ‘standard’ in asset exchange. Spooner I believe addressed this issue by revealing that wealth itself is neither material nor immaterial – but rather a flux between the both. Wealth begets wealth. One with a keen mind has the tools at hand to produce material wealth. Adam Smith comes to mind.

How many thousands of years must we debate over the trivialities of the superiority of one form of commodity over another? Let there be an end to a monopoly on the ‘necessity’ for a form of wealth. I’m sure someone starving for thirst would cast aside diamonds for water. Wealth is in the eye of the beholder; it is subjective. Let each community attempt a different form of money for exchange. It is quite apparent that there are currencies which rise to the top due to their liquidity and their prevalence within the market.

Centralization of wealth itself is the problem. Decentralization would not counter anything currently in place but for the ability to amass riches to a ridiculous corporate level to the detriment of competing small business. And while it is plainly good when a company reaches large-scale the negative effects are only attained through state-supportive monopolies and protectionist (specialist) agenda.

This is hailing of course from the theory for voluntary association. Not where we are placed side by side and expected to exist in peace as the current system dictates. Anarchism easily defines not utopia but heterotopia.

Now as to the application it becomes readily apparent that technology affords us a method for attaining this ideal liberty. Every machine is one of complexity and never is it conceived by one person. Always the different tweaks and developments are those of many (not always for profit) but for solving problems at hand. Take a look at Edison and the light bulb. He wasn’t the creator of the light bulb – he merely had access to patents and copyrights. His innovation came 70 years after the original. Since the creation is one of many and not ever of one – no one man deserves exclusive possession to it.

Technology is about production. The streamlining of production allows for goods to be produced at ever cheaper levels (and always for profit). It seems inevitable that technology may be able to outgrow monopoly.

The idea is simple: the way to liberty lies in plainly seeking land out and settling upon it and utilizing it. Each community should be absolutely free to make its own regulation (if it so chooses). There should be no imaginary line dictating regulation to people who live hundreds of miles in distance from each other, living with different interests and customs in mind. It seems to me, that the privatization of the public sector is the necessity.

The idea is simple: the way to liberty lies in not creating systems for the masses, but in allowing the minority – the individual ability to cope with the differences in ‘classes’. The way to liberty cannot be controlled and should not be controlled. Ever is it mankind’s method for wrestling with a world he has no right to conquer. Worse is it man’s method for controlling other men. It is not our place to rule others and it is not our place to be ruled. If there is a ruler – it is the ineffable, it is the ‘god’ construct the church maintained a knowledge monopoly over. If there is a ruler, we answer in the next life and not in this one. So instead of making it hell on earth – we should be attempting to build a heaven by all constructs now. Ceaseless is our struggle because we attempt to exercise dominion over the petty material things which easily rule us.

The aims of anarchism are only measurable in what one opposes. If one opposes the current state driven capitalist system – then that is the measure of anarchy for them. If one counters the selling of individual rights to another through the process of outdated marriage – then that is the measure of the feminist anarchism, ad infinitum.

It knows isolation is undesirable and impossible for the good of man. This system is one of mutual needs and collaboration. It is a system where resources are not taken away from the individual but rather, asserted as the natural birthright to all. It is a system where we retain our dignity above the pageants of wealth and class.

I despair knowing full well that my ideal shall never come to pass. I despair in my love for a theory knowing full well that the mass of our kind are too blind and witless to ever effect change. But I do not despair that I should remain silent to the ones I know and love. I do not despair that I’ve fallen for an ideal: freedom.

While I was away..

2008-09-15T12:52:00.000-07:00

Let me know when
you'll hand it back;
my heart signed,
on some paper stack.

I freely loved before you were through..

You held in hand, my name.
I held in hand, your heart.
You were free to take it back -
I apparently can't.

Now we're stuck waiting for those forms
to let us know
when we can end this battle;
this weight dragged on.

I recognized clearly
we didn't need papers
we didn't need lawyers
to claim what we knew.

You always wanted paper;
I always wanted you.

I freely loved before you were through
and now we're through.

You left it filed away
next to the tax return,
like you could return my heart
under a two year warranty.

I guess some things weren't made to last -
too bad.
This manufacturer makes only
one-of-a-kind demands.

Wrote this while on break. How quaint.

Moving Forward..

2008-09-14T11:49:00.000-07:00

I came home with nothing to say. With my laundry basket, blanket and hands full - I had little room to empty thoughts. I came home with nothing new to add. I wanted to say, my old friends are well, that my best friend is leaving for school, yet somehow all that fell through.

Events are what we make of them. It is excused otherwise. Whether we were created or made, we were meant to overcome obstacles. I came home with a conclusion.

I can't go back to my old way of life and ever be happy. I'll not meet anyone that could possibly be my companion. No, sadly a trip to my friends for vacation helped me grasp that I'm not capable of going out with much enthusiasm. I'm not capable of holding chit for chat on trivialities. If I don't know you - I don't wear much in patience.

I sat in a car with my old 'friend' Austin whom babbled on about the latest fashion and shows he watched. I sat silent - attempting to wade through the spew. Could I care less? Possibly. Who really makes it their life to prattle on about something that matters so little? He continued his ramble on Britney Spears and the VMA's. I continued nodding politely and grunting when he needed filler. He wants to move to Maui. Somehow that slipped in and I fumbled to recover the conversation to something more meaningful.

"Why Maui?" I tried to reason out that the prices of living were the very reason my family moved away and that he'd be reduced from less than middle income to nothing more than a wage slave. He didn't care. He summarized it so succinctly that I felt compelled to bite my tongue. He didn't care. So, why should I?

Prada, current boyfriends, D&G, name drop, empty thought, Rihanna, cute guys, and "look at his ass."

Ugh.

Who lives like this? I used to apparently find these things fascinating somehow because he was very bent on telling me it all. I could give a shit.

We went shopping. Correction; he went shopping - I stared helplessly at the clothing racks, then at the window. I excused myself for a smoke I hadn't had in months. I'm supposed to be done with that habit. Idle chatter brings out the worst in me.

So I sat outside glaring against the sun, inhaling the Camel against better judgment. Against better judgment, yet clearly drawing distinctions.

There was absolutely no way I could carry on my life in this tangent. I wasted a significant portion of my life by whim and chase for that 'someone'. So when asked if I've ever loved - I'll answer yes. Yes I have. I was in love with love. Now we avoid each other. Some friends would say I'm too picky, I'd say easily from experience - I wasn't picky enough. If I was being picky - I'm sure I would have met someone by now who wouldn't disappoint me. If I was being picky I would have held a conversation with words containing more than three syllables.

If I was being picky - I'd be silent because I was actually listening. Not silent because I wasn't sure of what to say. Silent because we both understood the other. I laugh now, but the thought occurred to me, I could hire an escort and pay him to just sleep the night and hold me. That's all. Nothing else. I've never been to bed with a guy who has tried anything but snuggle.

I came home with my tongue tied. I came home lonely. My body aching for someone to hold me, but my mind sighed in relief that the whole of me understood.

It's best I’m happy alone.

To life..

2008-08-29T09:33:00.000-07:00

Note to self: Try this more often.

Sleep might be more of a money-maker than you thought.

Sleeping_Entrepreneur A new poll by Fortune Small Business found that 84% of entrepreneurs said they developed business ideas or solved work-related problems while sleeping. The results were featured in a broader package of stories on the benefits of adequate sleep for entrepreneurs.

Alan Stafford, an executive coach and self-described “sleepworker” interviewed by Fortune Small Business, offers tips on how entrepreneurs can boost their creative and problem-solving juices during sleep, such as identifying business problems that need to be solved right before falling asleep, waking up slowly instead of with an alarm clock and keeping a dream journal on the nightstand.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised: I find some of my best ideas come around dawn in the hours I’m drifting in and out of sleep before actually climbing out of bed.

How about you? Ever have an inspiration while you slept? Or are you too busy to sleep much in the first place?

I'm not entirely surprised. I'm also completely sympathetic. Work weeks stretch out too far these past few months, and I know that it'll be like this for the duration of my life. Its a lifestyle and choice in this case.

Yes, I'd prefer working a lot to having a life. I haven't had a martini lunch in a few years. But again - not going to really complain. The only regret I have is the lack of sleep I actually win. I'm going to try this more often - and when I go on vacation I'll be sure to email myself thoughts to developing leads for the business. It's odd - I'm going on break and I can't just stop working. That would be a travesty. Really the projects can't handle a week off. I'm more or less forcing myself to go and try and handle it with some measure of relaxation.

In the back of my mind while I'm partying it up - I'll also be thinking about how to come up with the right mindset to speak with some potential sellers.

There is a certain amount of rational to this.

See the economy isn't so bad as it is in a correction. Everything investors have put money into is being revealed. We've seen six (I believe) credit companies go under. When the mistakes are shown to be numerous - the obvious thing is to drop them. Cut them. Like pruning a tree. Has anyone noticed some restaurants are risking loyalty with downgraded and poorer quality products? I certainly have. And they aren't receiving my business if they intend on keeping their cheap products at the same rate.

Yes, its costly to be an entrepreneur at this point in time. But - thats the gist of it. To those who make it past the intitial hurdle of costs there are alternatives. To those that make it when all others have lost - they'll come out quite successful. That's half the battle right? Survival.

Instead of cheapening the product - they should be looking to alternative types. I know we have. Instead of lower-quality we've been investing in alternative media for sales. We've alternated the sales of products to reflect seasonal needs. Focusing on selling short term, low cost equipment parts (vs the machinery that requires quite a bit of investment). Instead of allowing the sellers to monopolize on this and raise their prices - we've agreed instead to buy into bigger bulk - to keep the costs down overall. It works out for both buyer and seller.

In the end - loyalty from the customer is what keeps business afloat. If business owners continue to charge the same price but cheapen the product - they lose. This is the time to obfuscate problems by innovating on a variety of products at lower rates.

The worst part is things just don't cost more as that our dollar has dropped in value. Thus we can measure the worth of our dollar by the increase in prices on goods. I try not to cringe when I do spend. I know its ultimately not worth the extra stress if I absolutely have to have it.

So here's to a vacation, to business, to life. I'll see you all in a week.*

*Sooner if I have to update. >_<

I'm Not Smiling..

2008-08-28T23:13:00.000-07:00

Politics brings out the worst in everyone, which is one good reason to completely depoliticize society. This way we can all busy ourselves in productive work or leisure, instead of wasting vast time watching these clowns on television promise the impossible to us.

What we are being offered on television is two flavors of dictatorship. One party imagines Athens, with fairness and justice for all, international brotherhood and sisterhood, a world free of hate and discrimination in which all wealth is shared and no wealth is made at the expense of nature.

Of course, this is an Athens of their own invention, since the original's culture and accomplishments depended on free trade, private ownership, sound money, and low taxes. What the Democrats are offering is a monstrously larger state that assumes control of all property, the crushing of private initiative, and an end to economic freedom.

Note that they don't talk about this. But that is the core of all their plans for fairness and justice: an increased use of violence in society, and an increased centralization of political power. Often the person who recommends this path imagines that he will be the dictator, and that his plans alone will prevail.

They don't consider that the state they advocate is also wholly capable of doing things that they do not like, like crushing civil liberties and starting wars all over the world. Note that the Left's critique of Bush's big government is not that it is crushing liberty; rather, they believe that government power is being used for the wrong purposes.

Another problem with these people: they can't stand capitalism. They resent the commercial society. They have not come to terms with the fact that without capitalism, most of the human race would starve the death. Why do they hate it? Because wealth under capitalism will always be unequally distributed.

They favor a different form of dictatorship.

Now to the Republicans, who imagine themselves creating a modern form of Sparta, with military strength and a disciplined citizenry unified in the drive to national greatness, courage, and heroism. Along with this comes support for national service (the draft) and a demand that Congress stop meddling in executive-branch matters.

They also say that they are for free enterprise, but what they really mean is that they support their main constituents who are large corporations dependent on government contracts and privileges. That goes for the banks and the mortgage companies too, whose interests they defend through a fiat-money system that further fuels state growth.
This too is their version of dictatorship.

It is long past time for both of these parties to admit it. They won't of course, so it is incumbent on the rest of us to at least recognize it for what it is. It is often said that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the parties, but there is little reflection on what precisely they have in common. It comes down to a love of some version of dictatorship, of which they believe they will be the administrators.

What is the alternative? It is pure liberty, a word that is used only as a slogan in public affairs these days. By liberty, I mean only one kind: a life without badgering from the state. There is nothing on God's green earth that the state can do better than we can as individuals and communities and voluntary associations. What I mean by liberty is no more or less than firing the state as the administrator of society.

The politicians are forever talking about their plans for us. We should reject them all, left, right, and center. Would this leave chaos in its wake? Not at all. It would leave the orderliness of the private-property society.

As Mises wrote,

The truth is that the choice is not between a dead mechanism and a rigid automatism on the one hand and conscious planning on the other hand. The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is: whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself or should the paternal government alone plan for all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is spontaneous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence.

Mises wrote those words in 1949. People said that he was being hyperbolic, that he was nuts and inflammatory. Surely our system has nothing in common with the German system we had just fought a war to destroy, and nothing in common with the Russian system that was becoming our new enemy.

But people forget that in the 1930s, it was conventional wisdom that our essential choice was between two forms of dictatorship, socialism or fascism. People were more open back then, using these words not in a derogatory way. Here we are all these years later, and we no longer speak with deference toward socialism and fascism as systems of government.

Even so, the intellectual assumptions remain the same. Watch the conventions with an eye to what the political class wants to do for you. Everything they promise has a flip side of what they want to do to you. And the power to do these things has to come from the violence of the state, and using that violence requires a form of total control over government and society. They may look nice and sweet. They may claim to love you and your family and community. But their political ideology is actually steeped in hatred for your liberty and property. They seek an end to your freedom to seek a better life.

They seek dictatorship. All the rest is illusion.

Daily Article by Llewellyn H Rockwell, Jr.

A Reference

2008-08-28T21:29:00.000-07:00

Burden of proof: Logic dictates that the burden of proof be put on the positive claim. In this case, while common belief dictates that the anarchist has the burden of proof, it actually belongs to both parties. Both are making a positive claim about social organization. Furthermore, most statists make the same claim as the anarchist (i.e. that markets should exist) but adds an extra claim (i.e. that the state should exist), therefore the statist has an extra burden of proof. Statists are incapable of shedding this extra burden, which makes this a powerful argument, if you can get an honest statist to admit that he's making a positive claim.

Moral Argument: A moral principle or system, or a political principle or system, is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application (to locations, times or persons). Can also be called "universality." Argument made by Murray Rothbard in his book The Ethics of Liberty.

Gun control is invalid because it sets one principle for one group (state exploiters)- you can have guns- and another principle for the rest of us- you can't have guns. Taxation is invalid because theft remains criminal in all other instances. If it is just for some people to steal in the name of the "common good", then it should be good for everyone. And so on.

Geometric Argument: Consists of setting up a fictional scenario involving three people on a desert island, pointing out that statist behaviour in such a scenario is immoral (such as taxation- two people deciding to steal a third's resources because they think he has too much) without noting that it is statist behaviour, and expanding the situation in numbers until you reach the "millions of people" stage, at which point you reveal the statist analogy.

Argument from the State of Nature: Consists of examining every possible alternative about the nature of man and showing how the state is undesirable in all these alternatives. For example: if everyone is born good, then we don't need a state, if everyone is born evil, then the state would be evil as well, and if everyone is a mixture of good and evil, then a state only gives an opportunity for the most evil to wield power over the rest of us.

Semantic Argument: Consists of pointing out the conceptual absurdity of concepts such as "state", "country" and "citizenship", and showing that statism is literally meaningless. A favourite argument of Marc Stevens'.

Argument from Freedom: Consists of explaining the value of freedom, and demonstrating how Market Anarchy is the system most conductive to freedom.

Argument from Public Goods

1. A public good is defined as a good which cannot be efficiently provided because its provision benefits a wide population regardless of how many people paid for the good. Every single agents is faced with a high cost and a low proportion of the benefit, and thus will most likely not desire to shoulder any costs, making financing impossible. (Standard statist definition)

2a. In a democratic system, good governance is a public good because:

Any individual voter would need to shoulder great costs in order to form informed opinions on all issues of public policy, and, if his vote means anything at all, would only reap a very small proportion of the benefits. Therefore each individual voter has a negative incentive in bringing about good governance.
In trying to improve his situation, any individual lobbyist is faced with two alternatives: attempt to repeal the hundreds of laws passed by his opponents which make his life slightly worse (and which repeal could cumulatively make his life much easier), or pass one law for his interest group which makes life much easier for himself and slightly worse for everyone else. Since it is much easier to pass one law than repeal a hundred laws, he will necessarily choose the former.

2b. In a Market Anarchist system, good governance is a private good, because every individual directly reaps the reward of his good decisions, due to the one-to-one relationship between the customer and his agency. He faces the full costs, but reaps the full benefits as well.

2c. In a Market Anarchist system, bad governance is a public good because:

Any individual customer would need to shoulder additional costs in order to endorse a bad rule or institution (such as the War on Drugs), and therefore every individual customer has an incentive to reduce bad governance.
Any individual trying to bring about a State or other collectivist structure cannot do it alone. He would need the support of most people living on the same territory, as the State is a territorial monopoly. In doing so, he (and his eventual supporters) shoulders an enormous cost, with the anticipation of reaping only a small proportion of the (assumed) benefits of a State. Therefore States will tend to be very difficult to form within a Market Anarchy.

3. Therefore, Market Anarchy will more easily bring, maintain and cultivate good governance than democracy can, because democracy suffers from a fatal public goods problem, while Market Anarchy doesn't.

Freedom's Imperative
by Jim Davies

Proving that Market Anarchy is the only justifiable organizational system by demonstrating that self-ownership is axiomatically true and that Market Anarchy is the only organizational system built on that premise.

The Problem of Collectivist Obligation

(1) One or more of three possibilities must obtain:

Morality does not exist.
Morality is determined by the individual (realism, subjectivism, etc).
Morality is determined by the collective (autocracy, utilitarianism, etc).

(2) Morality necessarily exists, because:

Morality is axiomatic (cannot be denied without direct contradiction).
Morality is a necessary fact for all moral agents.

(3) Either morality is determined by the individual moral agent, or the collective, or both. (from 1 and 2)

(4) Collectivist obligation is inter-subjective relative to the collectivist belief system.

(5) Any moral obligation towards the collective would have to be demonstrated objectively (i.e. as a fact that exists independently from the group).

(6) It is impossible to go from inter-subjective propositions to objective propositions, as any given sum or network of inter-subjective propositions must still remain grounded to the belief system.

(7) It is impossible to justify the passage from collectivist obligation to moral obligation. (from 4, 5 and 6)

(8) Morality cannot be determined by the collective. (from 7)

(9) Morality can only be determined by the individual moral agent. (from 3 and 8)

Spooner's Dilemma

If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.

On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as injustice. If there be no such natural principle as honesty, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor can ever exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist...

Lysander Spooner, "Natural Law," Section V

*Graveyard of the Gods

A Glossary

2008-08-28T21:18:00.001-07:00

"Agencies", "Protection Agencies": The terms I use to designate companies which offer a code (replacing the monopolistic law), and protection services following that code, to their customers.

Anarchy: The absence of a state. Any form of social organization which does not include a state.

Accountability: A feedback system by which we can select the changes we desire and help eliminate the ones we don't. In the market, this is called profit. There is no statist analogue, although voting is sometimes invoked. Accountability is the product of a healthy incentive system.

Arbitration: In general, a form of justice where both parties designate a person whose ruling they will accept formally. More specifically in Market Anarchist theory, arbitration designates the process by which two agenciesagency is involved in a dispute. pre-negociate a set of common rules in anticipation of cases where a customer from each

Capitalism, State Capitalism: Can variably designate an economic system based on markets, or an economic system where the most economically powerful take advantage of the state's power in order to extract advantages over everyone else.

Civil Disobedience: Refusing to obey the law, or a law in particular, for moral reasons. Civil disobedience, when done for sound moral reasons, is one of the most noble social acts one can perform.

Class: A social stratum whose members share certain political characteristics. In statism, we can differentiate between four general classes: the ruling class, the exploitative class, the working class, and the welfare class.

The ruling class is the group of individuals who are part of the state.
The exploitative class is the group of individuals who are exploiters but not part of the state.
The working class is the group of individuals who receive neither the dubious benefit of welfare, nor the morally corrupt benefits of being an exploiter. This represents the largest segment of the population.
The welfare class is the group of individuals who are entrapped by the state in a cycle of poverty, and unwittingly repay the state by giving it legitimacy.

Communism: An economic system where both political and economic power are vested in the ruling class. Nothing more than State Capitalism taken to its logical extent.

Democracy: According to statist propaganda, a collectivist method of self-governance, "by the people, for the people". In practice, democracy is the means by which the state secures its legitimacy without needing to surrender any real power to "the people", representing a step down from monarchy, a form of social organization in which legitimacy is an arduous process. It gives the illusion of decision-making to its captive population through the process of voting, which is yet another form of "might makes right", although ultimately a futile one. The main product of democracy is social warfare. As a decision-making process, should be replaced by Informed Consensus.

Voting: A democratic ritual in which individuals, called "voters", cast ballots in favour of a candidate or party. Morally, it represents a sanction of state coercion, as democracy is a mechanism of legitimacy.
Social warfare: Process by which individuals affiliate themselves to various activist groups and demand laws, rights or privileges. Social warfare arises because of the Tragedy of the Commons: people must band together and get state power to act in their favour before other people do the same against them. When present in a relatively free society, the end result of this process is called the erosion of freedom.
Informed Consensus: Process of decision-making where groups of informed individuals come together and take a decision by consensus, with a set of rules and values used to guide dialogue. This can be scaled to as few as two individuals (a couple) and as many as hundreds of thousands of people or more (Wikipedia).

DROs: Dispute Resolution Organizations. Term used by Stefan Molyneux to designate private courts, which also preside over arbitration.

Equality: A statist code-word used to imbue legitimacy to the democratic process, and push the doctrine of social justice. In reality, political equality means that all individuals should have the same rights. Statist systems are inherently unequal, as they are predicated on the existence of a ruling class which has the right to make an arbitrary code of laws, impose it by force, steal people's resources, and so on.

Exploitation: The process of restricting people's value expression without their consent, of one's own power, through the use of the power of another, or indirectly through propaganda. I distinguish between three categories of exploiters : first-hand parasites, second-hand parasites, and free riders.

First-hand parasites are the individuals who use force directly, those that have the guns, and the individuals who give orders to them (policemen, soldiers, private criminals, politicians, bureaucrats).
Second-hand parasites are the individuals who exploit indirectly by benefitting from state power, and depend on state coercion for the maintenance of their status (activists, interest groups, political organizations and parties, unions, corporate trusts, corporations receiving subsidies, corporations benefitting from protectionism, mafias).
Free riders are people who would still have a job in a market anarchy, but who use state power to further their aims, while suffering the perverse effects of said power (CEOs of multinationals, politico-scientists and politico-artists, activists, churches, lawyers, doctors, insurers, public school teachers, amateur and professional athletes, and so on).

Immigration: The action of crossing a border into a different country. There is no reason to think that people separated by an arbitrary line cannot be part of the same society, and in our modern world, such an idea is grossly outmoded and absurd.

Border: Arbitrary line which delimitates the territories that each state can exploit.
Country: Arbitrary territory delimitated by borders. The existence of countries and of parasitic exploitation within them gives rise to nationalism.
Nationalism: Psychopathic belief of state-slaves that they alone have the best master. This behaviour is also observed in other forms of slavery and kidnapping.

Incentive and incentive system: An incentive is a path of preferred behaviour induced by a feature of a system. An incentive system is the sum total of all such paths for a given system. Incentives are an important feature of any form of social organization because they hold true regardless of who is in power or a specific culture, and as such they tell us how desirable this or that form is in general.

For example, statist systems have a strong incentive towards war because states can raise the resources needed by taxation and force people to become killers through draft, while market organizations cannot do the same. Therefore we should expect statist systems in general to be more warlike, and perhaps a correlation between state power and war, a tendancy which we observe in history.

Perpetual war: A (mostly metaphorical) war whose victory conditions are unattainable, usually because the goal is a nebulous concept or for whose opposite there will always be a demand (e.g. "poverty", "terrorism", "drugs").

Law: A monopolistic construct of the ruling class, designed to further its interests and enforced by its monopolistic courts. In order for the state to maintain its monopoly on coercion, anyone who breaks these rules is declared a criminal, and thus deligitimized in the eyes of the people.

Market: The process of freely trading for a certain commodity (as opposed to state control). The sum total of such trades.

Market Anarchy: A form of social organization where individuals are free to trade for any commodity, including those usually reserved to the state. In short, a form of social organization where individuals are politically free. The Chosen Aggression Principle is a fundamental principle of Market Anarchy.

Freedom: Capacity to fulfill one's values. To be free means to be able to fulfill one's values to the best of one's abilities, without interference. There are four areas of freedom: personal freedom, relational freedom, social freedom and political freedom.
Trade: The exchange or sharing of resources.
The Chosen Aggression Principle (CAP): Every individual has the right to choose the degree of aggression or force (or lack thereof) that he will accept in his life.

Right: According to statist propaganda, a whole category of arbitrary laws and privileges united by a common concept (e.g. "the right to health care", "animal rights") that are owed to a group for no specific reason. In reality, a natural principle of social progress, derived from the value of freedom. A right is possessed by all individuals, and stops when the rights of another are infringed.

Right of self-ownership: Principle that all individuals should own their own bodies.
Right of action: Principle that all individuals should be free to act in any way desired.
Right of property: Principle that all individuals should be free to own things other than their own bodies.
Progress: The expansion of our capacity to act (that which freedom acts upon).

Social justice: According to statist propaganda, a vast forcible redistribution of resources by the state in order to enforce "equality". In reality, the market is true social justice, where you receive resources and popularity proportionally to the perceived value of your contributions, and give proportionally to how you perceive other people's work. That is the only just social principle.

Society: The sum total of all voluntary interrelations between individuals.

Statism: Utopian belief system having as fundamental principle that the state is the best (or only acceptable) form of social organization. As for most belief systems, it is mostly transmitted through constant propaganda by the ruling class and the exploitative class, as well as the reinforcement provided by peer pressure and ostracism. Its morality is uniformly of the type "might makes right".

Utopian: A form of social organization which goes against basic facts of human nature. Statism is utopian because its imposition of a singular value system on the whole of society goes against the fact that most human beings have different value systems. This creates the endemic social warfare typical of most democracies.
Propaganda: A coherent structure of psychological entrapment, having the aim of manipulating people's value systems into serving those who control the structure. In a democratic state, this is achieved by control over money (e.g. through subsidies), education, the media, science and art.
"Might makes right": The belief that the need for moral justification can be mitigated or eliminated by the use of force. Statism is a "might makes right" belief system because it claims that the sheer power of the state overrides moral concerns regarding the use of force. The state, in this view, transcends morality in a way that private individuals cannot (e.g. a murderer vs a soldier).

State and ruling class: A parasitic organization monopolizing order on a given territory, using the process of legitimized coercion (mainly through the imposition of a singular value system). Provides some services coercively and in a monopolistic fashion (such as police, military, law, courts, roads, currencies, charity, and so on). Statists point to these services as proof of legitimacy, even though these services would be provided far more efficiently and morally without monopoly or coercion. The individuals populating the state are globally known as the ruling class. The state follows the Parasite Principle.

Monopoly: Exclusive control over the production of a commodity by one organization. Monopolies lead to higher prices, lower service, and lowered incentives for progress. The state is the clearest and most widespread example of a monopoly, on many different and vital commodities.
Order: The social result of an apparatus by which actions are evaluated and judged. Necessarily implies legitimacy on the part of the apparatus.
Legitimized: General belief that someone's power or authority is justified. Such a belief can be manufactured by propaganda. Legitimacy explains why a serial killer is jailed, while a soldier who kills "the enemy" is rewarded.
Coercion: Using force against, or threatening the use of force against, an individual to make him act against his will or agreement.
Parasite: An organism that obtains nourishment from a host without benefiting or killing the host.
The Parasite Principle: "In all state actions, there are winners- the ruling class and the exploitative class- and losers- us."

Value system: Hierarchy of values that all moral agents possess, and is demonstrated by their choices. Most people's value systems differ, making the imposition of a singular value system by the state a source of constant social warfare. This is an individualistic concept. One's value system is molded by one's virtues or vices.

Value: A class of things that one seeks to gain or keep. In a rational value system, a value is necessary for the expression of all others, forming a self-sustaining system. For example, the value of freedom- freedom is necessary for the expression of all other values.
Individualism: The basic moral premise that only individuals can act, benefit and suffer. The opposite of collectivism, which holds that abstract groups or transcendent entities can act, benefit or suffer, necessitating an abstract structure (such as the state) to support these groups or entities.
Virtue: A mental habit conductive to moral behavior. The opposite of vice. Example: the virtue of non-coercion.

War: Murder on a large scale committed in the name of the state or against it. The murderers who participate in it are called "soldiers".

Racing Time

2008-08-28T15:55:00.000-07:00

How do people do it? How do they manage to invest so much time into work and still maintain relations? Is it because they are better at multitasking? Or am I just looking at the surface?

Thankfully I'm heading on a long awaited break. I've been busting butt these past few months and I find it amusing that I still found time to multitask writing into the entire mixture. I'll be taking one more vacation for the year and then it'll really be crunch time. I’m already investing 70-80 hours of my time per week just for one job. But the time seems to whittle to nothing!

My only friend is heading off to school (finally!) and I'm really pleased with her for that. While that does leave me with nothing - it isn't really horrible. She's furthering herself as am I. It also notably frees extra time for me to work. When she is off focusing on her life - I'll be able to completely devote all efforts to myself.

It's odd; I have my hand dipped into all sorts of projects. But I find myself needing to take a look at what I'm doing - and arrange them in an ordinal manner.

Firstly I need to complete this project for the library I work for. We are near end of the first segment. After that – it is a cake walk. When I work this much I find it unfathomable to meet or socialize with anyone outside of business. I can't invest any more of my actual time. Everything is about developing business at this point.

Secondly I recently mused that we should set an article-relevant blog and mirror site for the actual company so that we could develop leads. I proposed a creation of a forum. Now that they love my idea.. I'm to complete the research as well. >_> Sure; don't make me sweat it or nothing. But I can hardly complain - it means a 'bonus'. The demographic is feasible, its not too much to maintain. It is however; yet another project to throw on me. Luckily this will be relatively easy to accomplish while I'm in the office as it just requires me toggling between windows and developing rapport with the customers and other entities.

In my 'free-time' I'm researching for a potential future demographic. I am planning on opening a business. I know who I'm selling to. But I need to research a bit more into the costs of setting it up. If I can - I'll take the promotion to Buyer/Seller for the library and then use the money I make from that towards this business venture if everything seems sound. Meanwhile I'm developing my own network with the customers I intend on selling to. If all else fails – I at least learned something about my potential =)

I also am starting to 'relearn' Japanese. It isn't so difficult because my stepmother is Japanese. I figure this should be an asset for whoever wants to hire me. If I can get my Japanese above rudimentary then I’ll be perfectly set before I head to school.

When the business venture is over with here I will then be moving to Las Vegas. I'll be pursuing a BSBA and then following up with a MBA/MIS. The reason I choose so is because I have a scholarship applicable there - and they train for the MBA/MIS quite well.

So I’ve learned something today.

I have no life. Yet I’m attempting to make one – hopefully I’ll have time to myself in five years. I project about three years of improbability for actual dating. I project about two years for not making any new friends. But I do project a sickening amount of growth for myself. I hope I’ve chosen well.

*Down the Rabbit Hole by somefield@deviantart.com

At least I'm Far from Hitler..

2008-08-27T20:51:00.000-07:00

The Political Compass™ has charted the most prominent names in the 2008 US Primaries. They have been evaluated through scrutiny of public statements, manifestos, interviews and, crucially, voting records. Our apologies for those not included.

It is important to recognise that The Political Compass™ is a continuum rather than consisting of hard and fast quadrants. For example, Ron Paul on the social scale is actually closer to Dennis Kucinich than to many figures within his own party. But on the economic scale, they are, of course, far apart.

When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a mainstream conservative.

Traditionally, political worldviews have been categorised as 'left' or 'right', according to the weight they give to various values. The left-right line was established for the French National Assembly of 1789, and has become simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added a perpendicular scale, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process. The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).

Note where I sit. I'm rather pleased with my placement far from the Fuhrer and Chief.

What this plot reveals is that I actually vouch for true 'freedom' on both an economic and social scale. Most people speak as if they understand what liberty is - which usually plots them up above - touting their philosophy as the be all end all.

I end with a quote about democracy. By its very principle - it is hypocritical. Please pay attention to Voltairine de Cleyre.

Vain delusion! Government is unreal, as intangible, as unapproachable as God. Try it, if you don’t believe it. […]

“I go to the White House; I say: “Mr. President, are you the government?”

“No, madam, I am its representative.”

“Well where is the principal? – who is the government?”

“The people of the United States.”

“The whole people?”

“I was elected.”

“Elected by whom?” the whole people?”

“Oh no, by some of the people; some of the voters. The majority vote of the whole was for another man, but I had the largest electoral vote.”

“Then you are a representative of the Electoral College, not of the whole people, nor the majority of the people, nor even a majority of the voters. But suppose the largest number of ballots cast had been for you: you would represent the majority of the voters, I suppose. But the majority, sir is not a tangible thing; it is an unknown quantity. An agent is usually held accountable to his principals.

If you do not know the individuals who voted for you, then you do not know for whom you are acting, nor to whom you are accountable. If any body of persons has delegated to you any authority, the disposal of any right or part of a right, (supposing rights are transferable), you must have received it from the individuals composing that body; and you must have some means of learning who those individuals are, or you cannot know for whom you act, and you are utterly irresponsible as an agent.

Furthermore, such a body of voters can not give into your charge any rights but their own; by no possible jugglery of logic can they delegate the exercise of any function which they themselves do not control. If any individual on earth has a right to delegate his powers to whomsoever he chooses, then every other individual has an equal right; and if each has an equal right, then none can choose an agent for another without the other’s consent.

Therefore, if the power of government resides in the whole people, and out of that whole all but one elected you as their agent, you would still have no authority whatever to act for the one. The individuals composing the minority who did not appoint you have just the same rights and powers as those composing the majority who did; and if they prefer not to delegate them at all, then neither you nor any one, has any authority whatever to coerce them into accepting you, or anyone as their agent. Upon your own basis the coercive authority resides not in the majority, not in any proportion of the people, but in the whole people.”

Hence, the necessary “overthrow of government” as a coercive power, thereby denying tyranny in another form.

Rerum Concordia Discors

2008-08-27T12:56:00.000-07:00

Quo animo?
Quo iure?
Neutiquam erro
nil admiraro.

Omnia mutantur nos
et mutamur in illis.
Quod natura
non sunt turpia.

Regnat non regitur
qui nihil nisi quod vult facit.
Respice finem.
Rerum concordia discors.

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur lol.

My musing translated:

With what spirit?
what law?
I am not lost
I admire nothing.

All things change
and we change with them.
What is natural
cannot be bad.

He who is king, is not a subject
who does what he wishes.
Look to the end.
The concord of things through discord.

Everything sounds profound in Latin lol.

*Golden Apple by WizardofRoz@deviantart.com

Advice from a Caterpillar

2008-08-26T23:22:00.000-07:00

In order to combat the state spread policies of destruction we need an economically informed public.

Not many read into economics. However; once started, it can evolve to a new way of studying the very movement of society. I've been consumed for months after picking up on one article by the Mises Institute.

It is not without much thought that I've finally decided upon a course of action. Now in the past few months as I worked, I toyed heavily with pursuing Economics, most notably Austrian Economics. However; events dictate a slightly different path - and one that is not entirely unwholesome for me. No; it is quite palatable. I will be pursuant of a BSBA after my work is done here. When that is accomplished I'll be finishing up with an MBA/MIS. That is, Masters in Business Administration combined with Management Information Systems. Because of the locality I believe Sin City is my appropriate future abode.

It is exciting to realize in a mere reading that so much of what our society takes for granted is false. After a mere session one feels compelled to start spreading the truth. Which is in essence why I've decided to place my 'faith' in this one art of studying social behavior. Forget everything you knew about sociology and psychology; learn everything about economics. It cuts to the root of the matters of interpersonal exchange. Economists may differ in light of favoring the Keynesian model and the Free-Market faith - however; they both at least address the movement of our society.

To better understand this let us take a look into inflation. The majority of people view inflation like a disease. It rushes through like a tidal wave, creating an interesting arrangement of wreckage. Damage is obvious - causes are not. At this point we see everyone pointing their fingers at everyone else. However; when you understand economics, you realize of course that the value of money is more affected by its quantity. You realize that only one institution contains the ultimate power of creating money out of thin air. This is without limit: it is the government-connected central bank.

As an example I take from someone who mentioned this earlier today. It is a readily apparent fact. This is what happens when we stray from in specie (in coins and not in paper money.) This is what happens when you place faith that the government is to have a hand in the invisible hand of markets.

I took this from someone on here but have abbreviated their sn. *Let me know if its ok to use your full sn!

"The price of gasoline and other petroleum products haven't gone up substantially in many years.

The value of the individual unit of currency used to purchase the above products, has been invisibly devalued to the point where we're not appreciably paid more units, but everything costs more units.

In 1900, 1 troy oz of gold = 10 barrels of oil = 20 American dollars. The only part of this that has changed, is that an American dollar is now worth only roughly 2 cents, and falling in geometric progression.

Coincidentally, if you take separate charts depicting the skyrocketing prices of commodities over time, for example: gold, silver, platinum, oil, whatever, and you superimpose them on one another, they will virtually form one single line. If you then flip this chart upside down, you'll have a chart virtually depicting the precise collapse of the dollar due to hyperinflation over time." - sc82

Economics forces our minds to comprehend society. It forces our minds to analyze many different views. We are changed from the ordinary consumer or even producer, to one that views the interests of all consumers and all producers. Instead of the short term we are forced to view the long term. This long term visual aids in spotting the effects of governmental policies. Hazlitt covers this in the first chapter. This book is rather interesting in that it was written 60 years ago and yet, reflects our society ignoring the time differences. It remains a powerful book of which anyone can read.

Commerce being the interpersonal netting of society must be defended. Entrepreneurs are changed to great heroes. Producers have plights. Unions are not necessarily defenders of rights; they are priveleged cartels of which exclude people who need work. Regulations are not for consumer protection. They are cost-raising messes lobbied for by producers attacks on other producers. They are fights carried out by big corporations against smaller private businesses. Antitrust is no longer a safeguard against the excesses of the corporate branches but rather, a bludgeon used by the big players against smarter competitors.

It helps us fit facts into the assemblage of a coherent world theory. The battle is not in court, it is no where near the election polls. The presidency has no hand in it, nor the legislature from which all our free-rides for freedom are damned. The battleground of the economist concerns a domain of existence of which is more powerful in the long run. This domain concerns the ideas of the individual trying to grasp the wheels of the world.

Knowledge is not merely for knowledge's sake. Remember:

"Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy." (reprint in Keith, Secret and Suppressed, 203)

Ipsa scientia potestas est. So let us take control of knowledge and wrest it from those who do everything to blind side the public. It is the well-being of society. It is freedom and the flowering of civilization that are at the precipice. The abstract ideas of cause and effect ultimately decide our direction in society.

Liberty is the only true economy.

[...] the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist. [...] I am sure the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas [...] But soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
– John Maynard Keynes

*Keynes, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. New York: Harbinger. 1965.

*art by hobofarmer@deviantart.com

Who.. me?

2008-08-25T11:15:00.000-07:00

Political Ideology Quiz
created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Anarchism

Who needs the State? Not you, it seems. You are an anarchist. Go forth and start the revolution of the crazy wild people. Then sit around the fire and wish there were still some doctors.

Anarchism

100%

Libertarian

100%

Republican

33%

Democrat-

33%

Socialism

33%

Fascist

17%

Although the wording was a bit off here and there. The wording of the results leads me to believe they were being playful. I find it funny that wikipedia (which isn't necessarily all that free) accurately depicts free-market anarchism (joint libertarian/anarchism).

Free-market anarchism (sometimes called market anarchism) refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy that harmonizes the abolition of the state with a market economy by proposing to replace the monopoly of force held by government with a competitive market of private institutions offering police protection, justice, and other defense services[2] - "the private allocation of force, without central control." Providers of force would be paid for voluntarily by those who wish to receive the services rather than individuals being taxed without their consent and assigned a particular provider without their consent. The belief, among free-market anarchists, is that this competition thus will tend to produce cheaper and higher quality legal and police services including "a high-quality good of impartial, efficient umpiring of conflicting rights claims."

Take that 'political ideology' quiz! ;D

An Introduction

2008-08-24T20:42:00.000-07:00

shor·ten \'shórt-ən \ vb 1 : to make short or shorter 2a : to reduce in power or efficiency b obs : to deprive of effect 3 : to make crumbly <~ pastry> ~ vi : to become short or shorter - short·en·er \ -nər, -ən-ər \ n syn SHORTEN, CURTAIL, ABBREVIATE, ABRIDGE, RETRENCH mean to reduce in extent. SHORTEN implies reduction in length or duration; CURTAIL adds an implication of cutting that in some way deprives of completeness or adequacy; ABBREVIATE implies a making shorter usually by omitting some part; ABRIDGE implies a reduction in compass or scope with retention of essential elements and a relative completeness in the result; RETRENCH suggests a reduction in extent or costs of something felt to be excessive

There was vitality here. It wasn’t apparent at first. Not to the deceiving eye nor the discerning mind. The realization crept along, and if one were patient enough it would surprise those who paced themselves. If you ran or skipped lightly you might escape the graying pavement. You’d possibly avoid the gutter where the hopeless flung their glass and plastic treasures. And you would certainly ignore the sky, scrapers, and anything else which never touched solid ground. Never could this place be fully appreciated if you were so careless as to drive. No, vigilance was key. Place one step at a time. Walk the many blocks. Add eight more miles for the benefit of your spoiled imagination. And make sure to stretch the dreamless liberally as they littered the street with gritty nails, needles and plastics. If you’re like any other, wishing you were oblivious to the disparity of the streets; watch your step. More importantly watch your shoes as they shuffle past the gutters. No one needs to look to the sky and wish when the dream reflects at your feet. Oh, and be sure to look twice at the empty revealing bottles; you may see a coastline of clouds, smog and pondering executives. Besides, slate plays wonderfully with the orphans of 5¢ greens and microbrews.

No, there was nothing spectacular about the pavement, or turns. Nothing intriguing about the miscreant bastards of littering alcoholics. Just an ever-changing landscape of face value. To all ignorant folk the coastline was not viewable from the city walk up. With no exceptions, a harried young man wound his way through this scenery. His gaze locked on the counts he made as he crossed the cracks and traffic lights. An easy task to focus on – it was one he did every other day. His arithmetic; precise, since the tracks he made were a repeat. His punctuality was aided in full by the blinders of a cap pulled too far down over green lidded flames. He worried about the time as always. It was habitual. Yet, there was a time the trip seemed longer. That dream, hard to recall. His memory was jarred with smoke and numbers.

Everything was alive then, but not now for Titian. Not now for the tattered figure trudging across orange and charcoal crosswalks. Not now for the boy who listened to a stranger illuminate his name. That someone once told him a defeated god held that title. She just couldn’t remember what that name was. This memory too was bottled up with the rest. Everyone forgot things today. They’d been forgetting for over a century. So with little thought to what he and everyone else lacked, the not-quite-a-defeated-god-but-more-than-a-boy continued his pace. A fashion molded from a lack of a steam bike, trolley transfers and a keen disinterest in sharing small spaces with the scrappy tenants of transit. He was thankful for only one thing.

The trip always got shorter.

There were many potential stops along the way to the Vaults of Logos. On the left hand side of Kemia Plaza hung a multitude of medicinal shops juxtaposed via shape and texture. Floating above them were the shopkeepers homes. This was a crude mixing of wood, windows and double entry doorways. The cherry finish on top was the favored metal wrought tiles, roofs which scattered light and diminished shadow. On the other side bright striped canopies and an odd splash of umbrellas settled over the walkway. Cafes, mini-markets, a smatter of eateries and bakeries hid behind this multi-color circus of safety nets. If it happened to be market day, they were hidden completely by the gathering of familiar strangers. Some chewed vegetable sandwiches. Others held dark nutty grains with a lot of meat. Many overdosed on caffeine and even more sugar. If it was after dusk, the noise lessened to a murmur over candlelit dinners and the latest drinks offered by the Ether Market.

However; if one's final destination was in fact the small, but homely center of Vespers mind - there was no other way. All ways were most definitely influenced by Vesper’s memory. Most people were unaware of this. It was a sad and unfortunate fact - but most led their rather uninteresting lives in total inexplicable ignorance of the Keeps' purpose. It may have been the only memory left in the city; in the world. But amnesia wouldn't get the worst of us down. We could still function. And the crude day to day tasks were just that. Tasks; functions. You didn't need to remember to brush your teeth. That was habit. Consummation of food, smoke and idle conversation; that too required little thought.

"G'evening isn't it?"

Titian halted mid thought. He even faltered in step. He wasn’t expecting anyone to just speak to him. He painstakingly practiced the arts of avoidance. Well, now that he was discovered there was no helping it. He shifted his gaze to acknowledge her. She was older, but not by much. Hard to tell with girls; they were strange. She was all embroidery and charcoal – and that was interesting enough. His eye twitched involuntarily at this study. Obviously she was an alchemist. She was different - and that couldn't be all that bad. Her suede aviator jacket, feathered top hat, and tweed long length skirt were indeed interesting. Actually it was very tasteful. He offered a response. Clothing like manners were necessary.

"Yes."

She persisted. "Wow, you should have disagreed." Rummaging through her many pockets, she proffered a single smoke. His facial muscles relaxed at seeing it.

"How so? Thank you I’m trying to quit." Two wasted strikes of a match for the both of them. One bonding habit; priceless.

"You’re welcome." She drew a puff out of hers. "I've asked that question every day for years. Everyone answers uniformly." The crosswalk dial signaled the ending of her sentence with a swing of its clock arm. They both contemplated in silence while meandering across the cobblestone.

A recyclables steam-trolley screeched unnervingly at a particular crossing of Kemia Plaza and Ferrum Bazaar. A few speckled pidges' flapped away indignantly. But the only chorus to be heard was the curious ringing of the ears and the hiss of boilers operating.

The alchemist and artisan guilds were favored by the current market trends. The sounding of hammers and anvil mingled with the mysterious thunder that emanated from the oft hidden underground playgrounds. Consequently, things shook around here.

“I offered you a trade.” She noted a familiar phrase. It was a philosophy of the people of Vesper, it was the modus operandi of the people off the Banks of the Nimbus River, and all of the peaceful folk of the Vale of Eris. It was a way of life. In order to achieve a trade of values, one must first offer a presumably desirous commodity. She was offering a value of conversation in hopes of receiving similar conversation.

“I’ll offer a return of investment then.” He took another drag. “Who was your teacher?”

…

The leather volume was dusty from disuse. It seemed these days that he had little time for writing. Not a day passed in which thought provoked focus; a deadly focus on the task at hand. He fancied a connection to the archer on the high walls hoping, indeed endeavoring for a swift finish of the enemy. He steeled himself and aimed true in hopes of merciful ends. Not a night ended where he questioned this present result of good intentions. The sounding of hammers and anvil now gave solace from the cacophonic cries of battle ringing outside the armaments of Vesper. His work consumed him like the blaze of his forge. His art was not the magnum opus he desired. But events swept and caught everyone in the tides of destruction.

“Titian! We ‘ave another order.” Katyli placed the leather bound order book on the table top. “I’m ‘eading out for a bite, want some?”

“Quite alright, I’ve already had my fill.” He watched bemused as her full figure exited stage left carrying with her a rather burdensome leather tote. He had noted that it was probably filled with the alchemic fire, flash powder. Now that could be construed as her magnum opus. The Alchemist Guild and the Artisan Guild were closely linked due to this current economic favoring. If it weren’t for her creation of flash powder, there would have been no such thing as his volvere. Consequently, if it weren’t for the heathen king and queen’s attack, there would also be no need for what he had hoped to be – a hunting device. So, hardly a day went by when yet another order was made.

Archers were by the by a useful commodity to have in such times as these, but you had to train from childhood constantly to show any marksmanship. It was this odd reflection that eventually led to the volvere’s development. It didn’t necessitate judgment of wind direction. Indeed, it was a point and click procedure – with practice one got better in time.

Call me Titian. I gave up my House name since it is needless. My heritage is proud. I am known as a Lost Composer for the Artisan Guild, Ferrum Bazaar. Simply, call me Titian.

Under the tutelage and influence of the Alchemists Guild, I was able to craft a rather useful device. This device is recognized as a Volvere. It is an exceedingly complex, yet simple tool. Originally the idea was created for hunting. People will never cease to amaze me with their ingenuity.

My personal twin volvere are crafted from Wolf's Froth, and Crucible Steel. It has a barrel of 18 inches in length with the ability to withstand internal and external pressure of at least one ton.

My weapon boasts a platina finish on the hammer, extractor, and the knock-out cylinder central pivot. Most of the metal work was painstaking even with conventional milling and drilling machina. The crudeness was overcome by hand polishing and filing.

In many of my first generation volvere, the pin upon which the cylinder pivoted was removed and the cartridge had to be removed for loading. Now I've implemented a loading gate at the rear of the cylinder so that the alchemist arrow can be loaded ordinally. To remove the cartridge one must push the rod underneath the barrel to extract the fired casing. The loading gate is located on the left side, favoring right-handed users. But for no difference in fee, I can craft it for our left handed friends. The volvere can thus be held with proper grip while using the free hand to eject spent casings and load the alchemists’ arrow.

Since the cylinder is firmly attached at both the front and rear of the frame, this is a strong design. I made sure the wolf's froth alloyed with crucible steel was thick in measurement. This weapon was originally crafted for hunting, but in today’s modern world you can never know when you will use this as a defense against our barbarous neighbors’ blades. The hammer on the back of the volvere must be cocked using the thumb. This action advances the cylinder to the next round and locks it in place. The trigger pull thus releases the hammer, which fires the round in the chamber. This allows for great accuracy akin to the marksmanship of archers. My early designs lacked the manual necessity of the hammer, and hence, there were misfires and fiery attitudes.

My youth was spent within the confines of market day. During this tumultuous period I apprenticed at the Alchemists Guild, Kemia. However my teacher, my reverent philosopher, understood that my gift was in shaping the world. Not seeking it. At once I began tutelage under the Lost Composer, artisan, Charbon.

Composer Charbon taught me an important lesson. It bears down to only one question. "If I do this, will the effects reflect my intentions?" What we do for ourselves profoundly affects the world. To blindly be assured the ripples won't come back to us is only logical. We cannot reach with a blind hand and take. We must give in order to receive. This is the axiom of our culture. This is the axiom of Vesper.

This is just something I've been working on. I don't intend on posting all of what I typed. But I picked out my favorite parts. I feel its a bit dry here and there - but all in all I'm pleased with what I have so far.

"Sic Semper Tyrannis"

2008-08-22T07:32:00.000-07:00

O, be some other name! What's in a name?

That which we call democracy by any other name would smell as stink.

Well, what is the root of money? Who printed the said money? It is not our vices that our evil, it's the behemoth behind the scenes restricting both cash and life flow. It's our demonocracy which creates these currencies. It's the government that says,

"Your money (taxes) or your life." Well I suppose life is important so I'll grudgingly pay the tax before I run.

The modern day person whom attacks capitalism attacks the very structures of civilization. Ever do we see the growth for taxes. Taxes of which allocate the riches of the actual producing people to the unproductive leeches of society. In essence, the ideals of the rose-like democrat are the foundations of sharing impoverishment.

I find it deeply amusing, that those who collect near the water call themselves democrats preaching the ideals of equality and freedom. It is the democracy that runs counter to personal freedom. In this equation – we find that personal freedom apparently doesn't necessitate equality. But hey, who said I vouch for equality of poverty? The current problems of our nation's welfare are set from the ground up (or rather from the ivory tower of government down). These people who live in constant despotism as a whole are not really given much to escape it. In fact it seems that in order to allow for mega corporations their wealth, the government must allow for a community of the poor. The reasons I state this are very simple. Let me lay it down for you.

Common economics actually states that prices would rise when the demand slows. Well, the reason for this is simple: merchants would raise prices on items no longer in demand if only to make up for lost profit. But what if one merchant were to do this and not another? Well take a wild guess at which merchant will actually make more money, sell more goods, and have an easier time – moving on to a better marketable good. Hint: it is not the greedy sedentary and lazy capitalist that wins in this scenario. Heath wrote a book on the necessity for heterotopian playgrounds of markets. I'm not going to even try and summarize.

It is in a society such as this that the aristocracy actually diminishes and crumbles and the poor find purchase in creating wealth for themselves. If any one person cannot make a living – it is of their volition and they need not take part of this society. Rather they should find a commune that is likely to develop in the wild. A commune of socialists that demand everyone is equal out of the spite, out of the envy. It is this fertile ground of democratic ideals that blossom out of hatred for those who can make a living. It is an envy that grows counter to those that can make something beautiful.

The misunderstanding of capitalism now is due to the government's involvement with private firms. Indeed, the government is at fault for allowing any one company to monopolize itself to disgusting proportions at the cost of driving off the competition. At the cost of driving off someone who would otherwise limit the power of any one company. I don't know how to make it seem any simpler. If the people who call themselves democrats plead for justice and liberty – then they must learn that what they are asking for is more taxation, less privatization, more welfare, and definitely – more warfare. This last word doesn't sound like it really stands for freedom. Indeed, those who call for more government are nothing more than servants asking for a tyranny. These are masochists who are slaves who want masters. They are lazy and want someone else to do the work.

The misunderstanding of capitalism is due to the warping done by progressive taxing, by centralized banking authorities, by pure paper currency, by drug prohibitions, by gun prohibitions, by affirmative action and employment mandates. Capitalism is further perverted by the government ran healthcare system, by the federal departments of mandated education, by centralized energy, by homeland security. The term capitalist is overrun with the gluttony of the DEA, SEC, FTC, FDA, BATFE, it is overrun by minimum legal wages, price controls, tariffs and welfare. In essence the free economy does not exist. In essence our economy is completely targeted by the government – and in this parasitic development - I say – no more.

So why do so many oppose capitalism? It could be the above referenced roots. Or it could merely be, envy and ignorance.

Helmut Schoeck from Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior (1966).

"What is decisive is the envious man's conviction that the envied man's prosperity, his success and his income are somehow to blame for the subject's deprivation, for the lack that he feels […] A self-pitying inclination to contemplate another's superiority or advantages, combined with a vague belief in his being the cause of one's own deprivation, is also to be found among educated members of our modern societies who really ought to know better. The primitive people's belief in black magic differs little from modern ideas. Whereas the socialist believes himself robbed by the employer, just as the politician in a developing country believes himself robbed by the industrial countries; so primitive man believes himself robbed by his neighbour, the latter having succeeded by black magic in spiriting away to his own fields' part of the former's harvest. (pp. 23, 51)

So it follows that one man's prosperity is usually blamed for the lack thereof in another. It is silly to think so since, we can see that those who make their lot better have strived and worked incessantly with industriousness to apply reason to the problems of life. It is this success that unreasonably sustains the belief that success is automatic, that it need be shared equally. So if one merchant produces more he must have stolen it from his neighbor? – I laugh. But unfortunately this is no laughing matter; it is thus further blamed on the social system that allowed this one merchant to take from another. The system is argued that it must be corrupt.

"[Capitalism] crowns the dishonest unscrupulous scoundrel, the swindler, the exploiter, the 'rugged individualist" […] As conditions are under [State-fertilized] capitalism, a man is forced to choose between virtue and poverty on the one hand, and vice and riches on the other." - Ludwig von Mises

So, capitalism does not bring to mind reluctant commentary, it in fact bears self-righteous arguments. It isn't merely a statement of "capitalism doesn't work" it is filled with venom; it is filled with "capitalism is the institutionalization of exploitation." I safely argue back that democracy is the institutionalization of envy and ignorance.

All taxes, sales, income, excise, land, these are your favored fruits of redistribution. Redistribution under the name of democracy. Income taxes however are the most flagrant, nay blatant form of theft. If taxes truly were proxy it would be on a per capita basis. Not an accelerated percentage of one's income.

Now onto the secondary nature of reviling capitalism: ignorance.

What we find here is that the reason economics is so difficult to adjust to is that to truly understand it – one has to be self-reflecting, ideal and logical. Social science is the study and control of human behavior. However, one cannot study human behavior as one studies the qualities of an atom. An atom is fixed in nature – a human is unpredictable at best – which is reflective of economics. To better theorize the behavior of the 'ends justifies the means' really means "to get what I want – I'll do anything I want." That is the needed basis for the study of econ. One needs to say – "what could someone do to get to point B?"

This inability to self-reflect is abundant in America. Mandatory schooling stamped out critical thinking in students K-12 since they are forced to sit and marinate in 'facts' that are 'true'. The problem again is not the numbers (since numbers don't lie) but the amount of numbers which definitely lie.

For those who attack capitalism, they may as well state they are primitivists who attack civilization itself. Go on and worship your state; the false idol it is.

Your attacks consist of malice, envy, and ignorance of true education. If democratic/socialistic people get what they want – it won't be the end for just capitalism – but the end of education, science, technology, art, rights, prosperity and be nothing more than a mockery of 'civilization'.

It will be the end of the means. So I hiss: "Sic Semper Tyrannis."

*Artwork by Eblu @ Deviantart.com

I creep.

2008-08-21T19:38:00.000-07:00

"The thought of snakes disturbs me for the fact they're poetically disgusting. They strike in precision to kill."

Forgive me for saying this is precisely why I love the symbolism of this 'cold' reptile. They exact just the right amount of pressure from their coils to suffocate prey, they need no more than a bite (concerning our venomous fiends) to deter an enemy. For my anti-archon philosophy, the snake hisses:

"Sic semper tyrannis!"

Whats more, snakes practice avoidance. They do not attack anyone outright. They attack their food and are satiated. Snakes will not attack unless startled or injured. They otherwise try to leave if agitated. This is a great philosophy.

Its interesting to note that snakes are really only 'evil' in the Christian sense of the term. They are definite adversaries! But they are never taken so far anywhere else. Take to Mucalinda, the snake who sheltered Buddha from the elements after reaching his enlightenment. Mucalinda is considered a Naga in the eastern faiths and it reveals a natural communion if you will, between the spirit of humans and nature. It naturally opposes the Christian hostility that we have grown accustomed to.

"The heavens darkened for seven days and a prodigious rain descended. However; the mighty king serpent, Mucalinda, came from beneath the earth and protected with his hood the one who is source of all protection. When the storm cleared, the king of serpents assumed his human form, bowed before Buddha and returned in joy to his palace."

Let me further indulge Jungian archetype. Chthonic is the nature within, the earthly impulse of self. Envy, deceit, lust, vice, pride; these are called negative and 'dark' aspects of the unconscious. When we look towards these slanders we realize that pride is love of self, lust is love of others, vice is love of the world and its mechanisms, sensuality is a love of disregard, envy is a product of love of others greatness. How can I express enough that these vices, these 'sins' are our animus! These sins are a measure of how 'good' we are. If we assume there is any bad or good, we assume they exist to measure each other. I propose that things aren't intrinsically good or evil, they merely are self-apparent. Because they are observable and we can learn from them, then if we place any value on anything - it is all good. However; this is hardly a new thought. Reference Baruch Spinoza. (I disagree with inferred points about state.)

Serpents are natural entities of chthonic mythos, they creep. I identify with this archetype so profoundly that I find it hard when people view me as cold. Far from it, indeed every act I do is so precise and exacting by nature - it cannot be helped that my emotions have infused the very substance of my doings. Unless I'm comfortable with you I do not readily change my tone of voice or manner of expression. Behind the silver tongue and behind the airy thought processes I spit there lurks beneath me the earth.

Artwork by ZombieKate @ Deviantart.com

..Snakes Cannot Lie

2008-08-20T23:19:00.000-07:00

Reeds rippled to the east.
A breeze running late overnight
revealed sidewinders
racing through the stalks -
stalking the charmer,
my rising dawn.

Splendid;
the wicks of emerald sparked glowing gold
and while the weeds coiled
I listened patiently
to the serpents silver tongue
licking silence with its coal black hum
- a silent beaming sun.

Snakes cannot lie.
The roots of my world
are honestly devoured
by serpents of the word.
The screen pressed my lips
as I fingered the trails of the
original sin through the bracken
and behind my glass
my eyes flickered,
a silent raging glow.

- m of bedlam

I woke early this morning to my curtains reaching across the room. I live on about twenty acres and it was actually fascinating to watch the fields ripple. It was like watching the splendid yet ravenous approach of the Midgard Serpent. That led me to this.

Portmanteaux - Nonsense Makes Sense

2008-08-19T22:07:00.000-07:00

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

I was experimenting with shots on a reflective piece of tin and this shot warped just enough towards the bottom. I recall the movie Science of Sleep. But I also recall the Jabberwocky. It made me think about how evocative dreams are. But more or less how reality can truly be strange all on its own.

Here is a translation of the portmanteaux.

It was four o'clock in the afternoon and the slimy, lithe badger
corkscrewed in the grass circle of the sundial:
All miserable and flimsy were the feathered mop birds
and lost green pigs whistled and bellowed.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the desperate passionate bird, and shun
The fuming, furious creature with snapping jaws!"

He took his verbal/gospel sword in hand:
Long time the fearsome foe he sought --
So he rested by the Tumtum drum tree,
And stood awhile in thought

And while in rough and gruff thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the thick dark woods,
And warbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The verbal/gospel blade sliced and hacked!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galloping triumphantly back.

"And has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beaming boy!
O beautiful and fabulous a day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

It was four o'clock in the afternoon and the slimy, lithe badger
corkscrewed in the grass circle of the sundial:
All miserable and flimsy were the feathered mop birds
and lost green pigs whistled and bellowed.

I am a Force of Nature

2008-08-19T14:33:00.000-07:00

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,

Black as the Pit from pole to pole,

I thank whatever gods may be

For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of Circumstance

I have not winced nor cried aloud.

Under the bludgeonings of Chance

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the Horror of the shade,

And yet the menace of the years

Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll,

I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.

- William Ernest Henley

Spinoza's Ideal was invoked this morning.

"I never feel like I have to do anything." The muse as I'll call her, mused. This was not a justification for laziness. Rather it is a deterministic position. It stands to reason, that freedom isn't necessitated by what one can say "No" to. But more along what one will say "Yes" to. We accept that events unfold the way they do, but when we do this - we become active rather than passive. We assume self-accountability. We become, the cause to our effect. In short, she's right. One should never feel like they have to do anything.

Freedom is not something that a lot of people develop. Generally one has to be both ideal and rational. One has to be unconventional to unhinge the grids of the societal circuitry.

One should never have to do something to please another. There should be no need to exchange vapid pleasantry. One will cut their overhead by recognizing that even doing something with minimal cost will remove inherent profit (freedom). Of course people are chatel; they will label someone like this as selfish, greedy, cold-hearted and all forms of 'ungodly' attributes. But does the actual 'free' individual care? Probably, no.

They live to do and the reason behind their action is valued highly. Freedom is necessitated by rationalization. This type of person, is one that gets the job done and requires little input.

Baruch Spinoza's "Tractatus de intellectus emendatione" (Treatise of Intellectual Understanding) gives perfect shape to the world. It reveals that there is no good or evil. It just reveals that social injustice and catastrophic events are self-evident. They only appear imperfect because of how far we limit ourselves.

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.” - Bukowski

Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem - Horace

(Remember when life's path is steep to keep your mind even.)

thoughts on asphalt..

2008-08-19T00:58:00.000-07:00

A waking dream slapped the
cracked asphalt summers.
In the path basked an ice cream truck;
in the heat a melody played.

In this vivid past
I screamed full fledged with life so vast;
wanting anything sweet.

Tires tread memory.
I dread nostalgia of tired days;
hazy days which spun on.
Presents -
from my practical present day family.

Today in the winter of my mind
I treat summers as mosquito bites.
I hold dear to the Raid - I spray the past.
I'd hold them dearer if I could feel as warm
as I did shaking above the asphalt black.

Today,
I watch memory wide - eyed,
drive by shooting me
with insignificant plot lines and tunes.

Smiles with missing teeth stampede by me.
Regrets beget an indoor life
imploring:
"Don't step outside!"

Nothing changes nor disappoints.
My room looks the same as yesterday,
in the corners of my mind.

A Darkling's Tale..

2008-08-18T00:27:00.000-07:00

The following I worked on for a bit. It's for my Changeling Tests.. but I won't update until I've rewritten all of the stories for the test results. You'll note Grimm's Fairy Tales and Edgar Allen Poe have an influence here =)

A Darkling's Tale:

There was once a miller who had a beautiful daughter, as she was grown up, he was anxious that she should be well married. Her father was convinced that the first best suitor should be suitable. Not long after a very rich and austere man asked for her hand. The miller could see nothing wrong with him so he betrothed his daughter to him.

The girl didn’t care for him. She felt no trust. Not a day went by that when she looked at him; a chill crawled up her spine. One day her betrothed said, “We shall soon be wed, I shall have to ready the house.” Out of innocent curiosity she inquired, as to where his house was.

“My home is out west in the dark woods. But before you can see it, I must clean it up a bit.” She excused herself from the dinner table not before he announced that she should visit on Sunday afternoon. ‘I have already invited guests for that day, and that you may not lose your way – I will spread ashes along your path.’

Friday came, and she felt dread crawl under her skin when she spied the dark woods beyond her father’s cottage. At long last her curiosity got the better of her. She filled her pockets with peas and lentils to sprinkle on the ground as she went along. On reaching the thorny entrance to the forest she found a slightly worn, but hardly noticeable path.

She walked the whole day through the bracken until she came to the deepest, darkest part of the forest. There she spied the lonely home, a dim and mysterious building, with all shutters and doors closed. This did not please her at all. No one seemed to be home even as the sun was setting, so she decided it best to see what was inside.

Not a soul to be seen! What silence reigned throughout! Suddenly a voice cried:

“Turn back, turn back, young maiden fair,
Linger not in this murderous lair.”

The girl glanced long enough to see the voice came from a bird, colorful in such an odd and dirty place. It swung in a cage on the far wall, again it cried:

“Turn back, turn back, young maiden fair,
Linger not in this murderous lair.”

The girl passed on, going from room to room, but they were all empty. At last she came to the cellar, and there sat a very, very old woman, who could not stop shaking her head.

“Can you tell me,” asked the soft-spoken maiden, “if my betrothed husband lives here?”

The very, very old woman shook her head harder, “Ah you poor child, what a place for you to come!” She continued rocking back and forth, “This is a Fae den, a murderers’ den.” The lady stopped rocking long enough to stir the cauldron. “You think yourself a bride and that your marriage will soon take place, but you will only dine with death at your marriage feast.” Her gnarled finger pointed to the steam rising from her cauldron, “Do you see the water I’m obliged to keep on the fire! As soon as that dark and unwholesome Fae has you, he will kill you.” The old woman rocked back and forth again, “He will eat you.” But then, the croaking voice softened just a little, “He will eat you, but you are not lost.”

Thereupon the old woman led her behind a large rotting cask, which hid her from view. “Keep as still as a mouse,” she whispered urgently. “Do not move, do not speak, or you will be the dinner! Tonight, tonight when the wicked Fae and his minions sleep, we will flee.”

The words hardly escaped the hags haggard lips, when the ragged crew came home, dragging through the entrance another young girl. The bird began to squawk its call before one of the minions cackled and threw the cage down. They were drunk and paid no heed to the girls mewling and sobbing. They choked her with wine to drink, three glasses full: three glasses of intoxicating red, white, and yellow. Soon her mewling and sobbing stopped.

The Fae with his long fingers tore her dainty clothing and laid her out on the table. The cleaver was soon in hand, and they tore the beautiful body to pieces, sprinkling salt where they may.

The poor bride crouched trembling and shuddering, she now understood her fate. It was at this moment that one of the Fae squealed in joy. A gold ring, remained on the little finger, but try as he might – he could not draw it off. Her Fae husband took the hatchet and hacked off the finger, but the finger sprang into the air, falling behind the casket into the bride’s lap. They lit a lamp but could not find it.

“Have you looked behind the cask?” said one of the treacherous minions. But the old woman called out, “Come, eat your suppers, let the thing be till tomorrow; the finger won’t run away.”

The ragged crew shared a laugh at that and ceased the search. The very, very old woman had mixed a sleeping draught with their wine, and before long they were all lying on the cellar floor. As soon as the girl was assured, and it was a very, very long time till she was, she came from behind the cask. Lightly she stepped over the contorted bodies of the murderers, all sleeping like angels close to one another. Every moment was renewed with dread as her steps creaked on the old wooden stairs.

She passed safely and slowly, and she with the old lady, hand in hand, opened the door and hastened as fast as they could from the Fae’s murderous den. The peas and lentils had sprouted in the night, all large enough to see where her path had taken her. All night they made their way through the briar and bramble, and it was morning before they reached the mill. The girl wept as she told her father, the old crone took to warming the young girl with blankets.

So the day came for the marriage feast. The bridegroom arrived; in his wake a familiar company of guests approached. The miller had taken care to invite all of his friends and relations. Soon all were eating merrily and the father asked that each guest regale them with a tale. The soft-spoken maiden sat very still, and did not say a word.

‘You, my love look tired,” said the bridegroom, turning to her, “perhaps you had a dream you would like to share?”

“I will tell you a dream then,” said the soft-spoken maiden. “I went alone through a dark and dreary forest and came at last to a lonely house; not a soul could be found within, but a bird hung on the far wall and cried:

‘Turn back, turn back, young maiden fair,
Linger not in this murderer’s lair.’

Again the bird cried:
‘My darling, this is only a dream,
So hush my sweet, no need to scream.’

I went through this wicked home, room to room, but they were all empty, everything was dim and lonely. At last I came upon the cellar, and there sat a strange and very, very old woman. She could not keep still. I asked her softly, if my betrothed lived here and she answered, ‘Ah you poor child, what a place for you to come!’ She continued rocking back and forth, ‘This is a Fae den, a murderers’ den.’

I had no where to turn, but this very, very old woman let me know, that my betrothed would kill me without mercy and afterwards eat me.

‘My darling this is a dream’ teased the bird.

‘The old woman hid me behind a large cask, and scarcely had she done so when the Fae and his ragged crew came home, dragging a young girl along with them. They gave her three kinds of wine to drink, white, red and yellow.’

Her dark husband turned to her with a questioning glance, “But it was only a dream?”

“Hush my sweet, no need to scream.’ The bird cried.”

The soft-spoken girl smiled, the guests chuckling at her clever retort:

‘They tore her dainty clothing, and butchered her upon their dining table, sprinkling salt as they went.’

“My darling, this is, only a dream.” She reminded her husband – still more guests chuckling.

‘One of the little minions spied a gold ring left on the dead girls fingers, and it was too difficult to draw off. The darkest and tallest of the Fae took a hatchet and hacked off her finger, but that finger sprang into the air and fell behind the great cask into my lap.’

The soft-spoken maiden threw an object onto the floor, “And there, is the finger with the ring.”

The bridegroom during the recital had grown very pale indeed. But the soft-spoken maiden had gained the art of enchantment with fear and curiosity, and he found he could not resist her tale or her words. He tried to escape then. But the guests seized him and the murderous minions and held them fast.

Instead of a feast, there was a banquet, decorated with the hanging bodies of the murderous band – clinking against each other like chimes in the wind.

..This and That

2008-08-18T00:18:00.000-07:00

I don't really practice much in the way of creative writing. I enjoy reading it; here's to a change of quills.

I've always felt safer with logic or reasoning. The lashing of any critique on my expression leaves me feeling raw and shaken.

When I write I feel like the scarecrow strung up high above the field. Yet as high as I am above the dirt, I still stare compelled with my bent and weak neck. I avoid looking at the eyes in the sky, I avoid seeing where my emotions rise. I feel alone in that field and I worry that the craven ravens will pick at me silently.

No, it is a lot easier for me to write of fanciful things. Dreamy and wondrous theories of 'what could have been,' 'how would it be,' and 'how it may be.' It's easier to discuss the worlds fairy tales and urban thoughts. I'd rather bask in the harvest moon, bask in the reaping of others - without suffering my sow.

It's easier to watch the world unfold than to fold that world into my grasp.

Maybe I fold my hand by not placing my bets. Playing it safe has left me out of the game. I don't presume I can express the world better on a folded parchment when all around me life is unbearably beautiful. It's beautiful, like the awkward twists of an arthritic wrist. The grief at a funeral is symphonic - but the dread and suffering is the harmonic.

No, much easier to pretend I don't see these things and not write about them. It's beautiful and I feel like I bludgeon shapes into the world with my words. I feel true artists take their strings of thought and play cat's cradle. I feel I sometimes pull too hard and thus strangle the image from its original purpose. The expression of me is 'lost in translation.'

I find this somehow amusing - as my screen name, idiom; has stuck with me for a long while. It is of course a culturally intrinsic expression which loses it's meaning across cultures. I feel that I have an expression which is intrinsic to me; and disturbingly alien to the world around me.

I adore everything around me - from dust that piles up, to the obvious charm in color. I find it unbearably breathtaking when you combine the 'ugly' with the 'mainstream beauty'. It's gritty.

My mind wanders without goals - I tend to spit what comes first.

Courtless..

2008-08-17T23:06:00.000-07:00

My mother killed her little son,
My father smiled when I was gone,
My sister loved me best of all;
She buried the family one and all.

Once there was a girl, who had no father or mother. All alone in a shack at the end of the village dwelt her godmother, a wicked and cruel woman, yet with just an ounce of heart. This woman wasn’t really a woman, but a disturbed Fae who made her keep amongst the living by spinning, weaving and sewing. The old woman took the miserable child in and put her to work on the loom.

So the years went by and the child eventually mastered the spindle, with it she drew fine lines of thread strong as wire. You had to get it right; else old mother Fay would cut off a finger as a lesson. The girl lost many fingers, but her thread was powerful and she fashioned replacements soon enough.

Eventually she also mastered the shuttle even when her fingers were slick with blood. She had to get it right; else old mother Fay would rip her hair out and make her weave a tapestry from it. Many tapestries later, the girl mastered both arts, and fashioned herself the most beautiful head of hair.

Eventually, she mastered the needle, and hardly noticed when she stitched through her finger tips. You had to get it right, or the old mother Fay would leave you with open seams. Many stitches and many cuts later, the pincushion girl was the most beautiful in the land and also the cleverest.

But she didn’t remain a docile creature, and she was slowly becoming her own master. One day, she would need to be rid of the old tyrant of a creature. The old mother Fay had taken to sleeping at all hours of the day, but try as she may the maiden couldn’t bring herself to challenge her.

One day as she was spinning, the solution came to her.

“Spindle, my spindle, haste thee away,

And here to my house bring the woodsman I pray.”

The spindle sprang out of her hand, out the door and she saw it dancing merrily in the country, drawing a golden thread behind it. Before long it vanished from sight so she took the weaver’s shuttle in her hand, sat down to her loom and began to weave. Soon she began singing another song.

“Shuttle, my shuttle, weave well this day,

And guide the woodsman to me, I pray.”

Immediately the shuttle sprang away and out the door. Before the threshold, it began to weave a tapestry which was more beautiful than the eyes of man had ever yet beheld. Lilies and roses blossomed on both sides and on the golden ground in the centre, green branches ascended, where all kinds of creatures frolicked. In the leaves, brightly colored birds sat, lacking nothing but song. As she held the needle in hand, she sang another song.

“Needle, my needle, sharp-pointed and fine,

Prepare a crime to anger this woodsman of mine.”

The needle leapt out of her fingers and flew everywhere quick as lightning. It threw down the flowers, it turned over the pots, the windows were broken and the door was knocked open. The maiden took herself and began to unstitch the seams that held her together. Very timely were her arts for the woodsman gasped in awe outside, but in dismay when he entered the threshold.

“Who has done this to thee!” She pointed a severed limb at the door to the cellar where the treacherous lazy mother Fay slept.

Old mother Fay, was quite surprised when an axe split her head from her shoulders.

Courtless are a mixture of this and that. They were isolated from the other changelings, so they had to improvise and find what worked for them. Many were abandoned and many more had no choice in their time in the realm of Faerie. They learned incomplete lessons in Pride, Avarice, Wrath and Desire, as such their body reflects this. Many are as incomplete or replaced with parts not entirely human or fae.

Courtless are like mannequin or dolls, covered in stitches. This is alright as each line or scar is a reminder for what happened and how they fixed that problem.

They found it difficult to escape the lands of the Fae because they didn’t know better. They thought the realm of Fae was all there was. To escape they had to dream of normalcy, they had to dream of something besides sick humor and pain. They had to overcome what they thought was their lives, dream of something better. As such, they were born into the impossible; which is why, coming to reality was possible.

Look back on the tale of the wooden boy – who only wanted to be real. He knew no better, he knew not what was evil and not what was good. He was a fool, but a lucky and crafty fool. He knows better now.

..Beasts

2008-08-17T23:04:00.000-07:00

Open the door, my darling dear,
Open the door to true love here!
Mind the words that you say,
Else find your heart ripped away!

On the end of a long journey, a man took shelter from a storm in an empty palace. As he left that morning he took a rose from the garden. The owner of the palace, a faerie in the guise of a terrible monster, captured him and dragged him towards punishment.

“You picked a rose from my garden.”

“It was only a flower for my daughter!” The man wept.

“I shall now pluck your heart.”

The man begged for life, for he had a daughter whom he loved very much. So, the beastly creature demanded that the daughter come to stay with him.

The man agreed with no intention of sending his daughter to the creature. When he finally reached his home, he found his daughter, lying cold on the steps. He found her as dead as the wilting rose in his hand.

In truth, the Fae took her and replaced her with a fake dead girl. The Fae treats the lovely daughter well but she certainly may not leave. One day she loses all hope for escape and agrees to wed the ever advancing beast. There is no ceremony, just an agreement, a veil and a wedding night.

On that wedding night, he lays with her and she becomes like him - a Beast. Forever; her memory and thought washed away in the flood of sensations. She is marked with the tyranny of now.

Love’s first kiss redeems everything in stories. The Frog becomes a handsome prince. The Beast is a loving man.

It’s a lie.

To kiss the Beast surrenders your mind to instinct. It’s a double-edged blade. Beasts live for spontaneity; they have a simple joy of living that is lost on all others. Colors are bright, sounds are rich, smells are heady and tastes are vivid. Theirs is a lesson in Desire and Wrath. They were shown a need to reign in their lusts and shown the results of their childish rants. Now they deal with the turmoil of feeling too much.

To love the beast is to become the beast. Memory, self-control and consciousness are lost. The animal is amoral. The animal is incapable of true thought.

The road to humanity through the wilds of the Hedge was arduous. They had to claw back their minds as well as their souls. The beast must turn against a life of lush experiences – long enough to chew, rake, and fight through the briar and bracken. Beasts live in a paradox. On the one hand they’re moral and conscious – yet fight and love their infusion of animalistic behavior. They are all that is human and animal. Civilization and wilderness.

Darklings..

2008-08-17T23:01:00.000-07:00

Turn back, turn back, young maiden fair,
Linger not in this murderous lair.
My darling, this is only a dream,
Hush my sweet, no need to scream.

There are things a person must do and things that a person must not. This story begins with a hill, somewhere not far away. They say that the Invisible Throng congregate there, four times a year.

The rules are simple. From sunrise to sunset on that night, the people must not speak of the Throng, and from sunset to sunrise of that night – they must not leave their homes.

Consider the young man of courage and curiosity, who would rather see the faeries for himself. He tells his sweetheart, the sweetest girl in fifty miles, that he wishes to see the faeries that morning. She recoils in horror and says that he must not speak of it.

It’s too late; for she has spoken of them too. She weeps and says that she will not go with him. She retires that night and prays most fervently for her love.

The young man of courage and curiosity hides at sunset on the mound, in a tree. He sees them, as they swoop from the sky in hundreds, and without warning they descend upon the tree and sweep the young man of courage and curiosity away – taking the tree with them. One hour before dawn, the sweetest girl in fifty miles hears the voice of her sweetheart at her window, begging to be let in. She goes to the door and steps outside to embrace him – and she too is gone.

One day, the young man, still of great courage but no longer of great curiosity will escape. Upon his return to the empty home of the sweetest girl in fifty miles – he realizes something.

His sweetheart never will return. She’s theirs forever.

Darklings know consequences keenly. Many were stolen as a consequence of doing exactly what they were told not to. Theirs is a lesson in Pride and Avarice. They were shown humility and punishment for having goals and having a need to slake their thirsts. They now deal with weighty decisions.

They cling obsessively to the solace of the night. They love the quiet as a consequence of having lived in a world where whispers and deadly promises echoed to their ears.

Darklings found it difficult to escape the lands of the Fae because their way back was hidden. To escape they had to live and thrive in the shadow along with all who crawled there. They were forced to use their curiosity that got them there in the first place – to overcome the fear of making another mistake. They – dealt with their fears.

..Elementals

2008-08-17T22:53:00.000-07:00

Round about, round about,
Bleed and Behold!
Reel away, keel away,
Spin your flesh into gold!

Sometimes there’s such a thing as wanting too much. This is a case where there once lived a King and Queen who reigned in a country a great way off. Now the King and Queen had everything they could desire, but lacked a child – and this too they craved.

One day by the river the answer to their fervent wishes came true. Unbeknownst to them a fae had answered with a binding contract.

“If they take this child, I shall take her back.”

This silent waif of a beauty was playing idly by the river. And in the Queen’s contrivance, she stole the girl for hers to keep.

The King and Queen were overwhelmed with joy and now they needed a celebration. “I will have the faeries dine so that they will be kind and good to our little daughter.” Now there were thirteen faeries in the kingdom; but as the king and queen had only twelve golden dishes for them to eat out of, they were forced to leave one of the fairies without asking her.

Twelve faeries came, each with a high red cap on her head and red shoes with high heels on her feet. After the feast was over they gathered round in a ring and gave all their best gifts to the little princess. One gave her goodness and another gave beauty, another gave riches and so on – till she had all the good in the world. Her parent’s were very pleased.

As soon as the last gift was given, a great noise was heard in the courtyard and word was – the thirteenth faerie had arrived. She carried with her a black cap and black shoes with high heels on her feet. Now as she had not been asked to the feast she was very angry indeed.

“My gift, upon the Princess’s birthday is that she shall fall still as a statue and never live again. You have wanted much in your quest of life and you have received much. Your daughter will be the envy of nations – as will she be but a trophy.”

Upon the beautiful girl’s 15th birthday – she became eternally beautiful. Like a statue she remained – the envy of all nations – and certainly a beautiful trophy for a likewise trophy King and Queen.

The changelings whose time in the land of the Fae caused them to embody the material aspects of nature feel the fae magic most painfully. They have been changed the most.

The journey home was hardest for the Elementals because they had been transformed too far. They had less reason to escape. Their humanity had been damaged and twisted by what they endured. Often – for nothing they did. They were suitable for some contrived effort or scheme a faerie was concocting.

These Changelings are the hardest to understand. Others reveal beauties, horrors, tricksters and even animals – in each something is revealed about ourselves. But this set of changelings were influenced and carved with the desire of objects and forces. They serve as examples of becoming what they are addicted to, becoming what they strive for. Theirs is a lesson in Desire and Avarice.

Fairest..

2008-08-17T22:49:00.000-07:00

Thou, queen, art the fairest in the land;
but o'er the hills, in the shade
a beauty lays to bed,

she's lovelier by far - so take her head.

This story concerns a breathtaking young man who dreamed of the love of a beautiful girl in his village. One night he made a special cake from a recipe he learned from his grandmother, and he waited in the dark for a faerie to come and take it.

The door opened; a dark tall faerie came in. He said to the faerie, “Not for you,” but his arrogance failed him; he shouldn’t have spoken to her. So he sat and waited a little longer. The door opened again; a loathly hag stepped in. The hag reached out her hand for the cake, but the young man slapped her hand away and said with anger, “Not for you.” His wrath got the better of him; he shouldn’t have touched her. So he sat and waited a little longer, and the door opened; a lady of unearthly beauty and grace stepped in, and he could say nothing, so stunned was he.

And the lady said, “For me,” and took his cake.

She stayed with him after that, this lady. She granted his wishes but somehow they were always twisted. He wished for money, and soon he married an ugly old woman, in the hopes that she would die and leave him nothing. The old woman proved healthier than he could imagine and was cruel and mean. The youth turned to his Fae lady again and wished the old woman dead.

True to her word, the Fae lady brought the plague to the town and the old woman died – so too did the young man’s sweetheart. He gained the mean old woman’s riches – but his love was dead – and so he wished himself dead and fell into a deep slumber.

He awoke in his coffin, buried six feet under, and as he began to beat upon the wood in his face, he heard a sweet, melodic voice say, “For me.” If anyone were to dig up his coffin, they would find nothing but dried leaves and stones.

This is the way of the Fairest. They take what and whom they will take, and they will have their fun first. They are to be loved and admired and they have right to treat that love how they will. The few who try to rise above that pettiness are something to be admired. They won their beauty very fairly.

Their flight from through the Hedge was the hardest to accomplish. The world they were a part of was hedonistic and very, very enchanting. It was a beautiful world filled to the brim with pain that was sweet and cruelty that was pleasant. They were surrounded by creatures thousands of times lovelier than anything on Earth. They had to focus all of their being on remembering what it was to be plain and to walk among the ordinary.

So, those who do leave are those with enough sense of self to abandon ecstasy, to love themselves and practice poetic justice. Theirs is a lesson in Pride and Wrath. Their dreams are filled with hellish beauty. Radiant blossoms become drenched in blood. Hair from a lover’s face becomes strands of barbed wire slicing their smiles away. And when they wake they don’t quite know if their screaming in anger or bliss.

..Ogres

2008-08-17T22:46:00.000-07:00

Poor Top-Off my best friend,
I knew ye well till I had a bite.
My favorite dish named; Half-Done,
A relished friend named; All-Gone.

The tale goes that there was once a troll, a beast who dined on human flesh and carved knife-handles out of their bones. Business was good and the troll decided that he needed assistance in his workshop.

One night he stole into a village and took away three sons of a shoemaker. He worked the three in his workshop on drill and lathe and chisel and awl for long hours.

Everyday at dawn he beat them and fed them on scraps of raw flesh. One night, the eldest took one of the knives he had made for the troll and crept in upon him while he slept. But the knife shrieked out loud and would not kill the troll, and the troll awoke and cooked the boy in a pie and forced each of his brothers to eat a slice before he beat them so hard that they were all purple and aubergine.

The second son made a pick so that he could open the lock on the door of the troll’s workshop, and at night he crept to the door and picked the lock. But the troll was waiting behind the door and so he chopped him up and cooked him in a stew which he fed to the youngest son, before beating him so hard that his teeth lay on the floor and his mouth was caked in blood.

The youngest boy worked so hard and so well in the workshop that the monster could find fewer and fewer reasons to beat him, and the knives the boy made were beautifully carved and the troll found that he could sell them for more gold than he ever had before.

One day, the troll came into the workshop and he leaned over the boy’s shoulder as the boy carved the knife handle, and the boy pointed out a detail of the carving. The troll craned closer to look and quick as lightning the boy turned his hand and stabbed the troll in the eye. That was the end of the troll.

The boy wanted to run away, but he turned back and saw that the workshop was now empty. So, he didn’t leave. He ate the troll’s food and slept in the troll’s bed. And now he dines on human flesh, and carves knife handles from the bones.

Business is good. One day soon, he will need assistance.

Changelings who identify as Ogres understand this story. It informs them of who they are. They know that abuse creates abusers, that the victims of brutality can sometimes become brutal themselves. By definition, the Ogres are those changelings who have been shaped by unthinking violence and brutishness defines them.

This is not to say Ogres can’t be gentle, honorable or possessed of restraint. It’s harder for them, but they have a lot of practice.

Ogres found it difficult to leave the hedge because they had to escape vicious captors, through locked basements, chains and manacles, regular beatings and a healthy fear of those beatings. They inevitably had to become as hard as their fae monsters in order to fight their way away from it all.

Ogres must be exceptional to have come so far from something so low. Theirs is a lesson in Wrath and Avarice.

Wizened..

2008-08-17T22:39:00.000-07:00

Look to the shoe it is too small!
there's blood from cutting her foot to fit.
Prince, Prince, Look again!
She can't stand, she can only sit!

There was once on a time, a Fae princess who was extremely proud, and thought herself, extremely clever. If a wooer came she gave him some riddle to guess, and if he could not find it out, he was sent to her work shop to sew beautiful clothing for her. She let it be made known also that whosoever solved her riddle should marry her and have the riches of the Court.

At length three tailors fell in with each other, the two eldest of whom prized themselves great artists of tapestry. The third was a little useless but clever and thought he may have luck.

They all three lined themselves up to the princess, claiming the wisest of them had understandings so fine – it could be threaded in a needle. The Fae Princess smiled.

“I have two kinds of hair on my head, what color is it?”

“If that is all,” said the first, “it must be black and white; like cloth that is called pepper and salt.” The princess shook her head and waited for the second.

“If not black and white, then its brown and red, like my father’s coat.”

“Another slave for my closet,” mocked the princess, “let the third answer, for I see he knows for certain.”

The little tailor stepped forth boldly and said, “The Princess is Fae, she has a silver and a golden hair on her head, those are the two different colors.” The Fae turned white as sheets and nearly fell with terror, she had firmly believed that no man on earth could discover it. When her pride returned she said, “Thou hast not won me yet by that; there is still something else that though must do. Below in a stable is a troll with which though shalt pass the night, and when I get up in the morning if thou art still alive, thou shalt marry me.”

She expected, however; she should thus be rid of the tailor, for the troll had never left any one alive who had fallen into its clutches.

When evening came the tailor was taken to the cages. The troll set upon the little fellow with a welcome of its claws: “Softly, softly,” said the tailor, “I will soon make thee quiet.” Without a care in the world he revealed some nuts and cracked them and ate them. The troll was seized with a desire for some as well. The tailor felt and handed him a handful of pebbles. Try as he might the troll couldn’t crack the nut.

The tailor thus began to amuse himself on a violin. When the troll heard the music, it too wanted to learn. The tailor smiled at the beast, “Light enough for a child. Look with the left I lay my fingers and with the right I stroke it with the bow, merrily it sings a song.”

“If thou hast a talent for it I’ll give you lessons, but you’re claws are terribly long, I must cut them.” Then the tailor fashioned a thumbscrew upon the trolls hands and left it on tight and snug. “Now you must wait till I come with scissors.”

When the Fae Princess heard the troll roaring fearfully in the night, she believed nothing else but that the tailor was dead. But in the morning she realized with dread, she must fulfill her promise, made in front of the entire Court. She, who thought herself so wise, had been had by someone who knew not his wisdom.

Wizened are practical and talented. They are products of a capricious and giving faerie. These Fae brought help and wealth to the needy individual. However; when offended they remind us of our place. The Wizened were kidnapped by such faeries and have endured this strange malice. They were trained by unreliable faerie taskmasters and have become tireless workers carrying tireless spite. Theirs is a lesson in Desire and Pride.

Their escape from the faerie realm was fought using cunning and viciousness. They were bribed, chained and ensorcelled. They were threatened, cajoled and tricked. They escaped through a labyrinth of tasks which required multiple attempts before they broke free.

Many wizened make a point of rising above their Pride and Desires if only because it got them there in the first place.

Form and Function

2008-08-17T15:59:00.000-07:00

Last night I entered my room; a monsoon gale bent on blowing every little thing every which way. Peacock feathers were replaced with silver reeds. The vase with the newly acquired reeds was thrown across the room. My blustering efforts scattered the books into orderly piles, I’m rather pleased with the results.

We had an extra cabinet door just lying around waiting to be fixed. Well instead, I took liberty to use it as décor; it now rests like a canvas, waiting to be finished. An aborigine boomerang I received from a long ago birthday was fixed in a safer spot. The ducks (which are my fathers) are now on one wall mounted in a reasonably pleasing order. The leopard print throw is minimized by the tree branches I arranged over it. I wish they were drift wood though – that would look much better.

I took down most of my framed photos of a rockabilly retro bar. Somehow the white walls look perfectly fine without them intruding.

There is something distinctly Spartan about my office (and bedroom) now. Yet I’m very pleased with this as well.

It makes me realize that I used to treasure knick knacks and all sorts of décor. I enjoyed the mingling of yard sale finds with expensive imports. Somehow that whimsy is gone. I somehow replaced that fanciful nature with something more streamlined.

Form and Function. What a novel thought ;)

As we get older do we find reason to discard the extras as habit? I’ve found that I’ve always made sure to dispose of things regularly. Yet, I can blame this on my rather nomadic habits and upbringing. I have friends who have plenty of possessions which are obviously dear to them and thus – why they hold on to them. Yet, I know if I receive a gift – I don’t feel obliged to flaunt or show it. Not unless it reflects what I want in my living space. I have a feeling when I get a house, that it will be rather minimalist by nature. I’ll more than likely make up for the emptiness with bold and sharp statements.

As an example I want textured concrete flooring, but I’ll be sure to utilize some natural fiber rugs, probably of a lighter color to lift the dark flooring. I want metal and glass fixtures, but I think I’ll have to add warmth with richly colored leather or suede lounge furniture.

This is where I come to a halt. I appreciate reductivist works. However; I hate how most of it feels cheap and tacky. I hope that if I’m going to have a sparse and modernistic backdrop, I’m going to be utilizing Nakashima’s designs for my furniture. His work is earthy and I hope to contrast such stark surroundings with the comfort of utilitarian beauty.

There’s something far more attractive about using traditional materials on modern shapes. As an example: I secretly want to steal my parents red corduroy couch and chair. Actually, that’s not really a secret.

*sighs*

Well probably ten years time I’ll be happy with the results. *sighs* I wish it were now.

"Whatever Will Be.."

2008-08-17T15:49:00.001-07:00

Whenever a choice is present, we sacrifice a value. So we see every action has a cost. This is known as opportunity cost. This is a key concept in economics.

This implicates that when faced with decisions, we attempt to reduce the mistakes made. This is a simple concept to understand; however, difficult to apply.

The first requirement to making any good decision is good judgment. You have to recognize that nothing comes without factors, that many different variables have costs and benefits. Each concept must be applied – if you truly are shrewd with your choices.

Here’s the pivotal point. If you come to a decision, there is no turning back. The past is past. If you focus too much on lost opportunity, you make a grievous error. People who overpaid for an item may find that they refuse to sell it, because they can’t accept the loss. They’ve already paid the cost of making this ill choice in purchase. Selling only makes them admit they made a mistake.

A simple enough example: I was invited on a date. I had to politely decline as I made the choice of hanging out with my friends. All evening long I spent wondering if I should have ignored principle and risked the rewards of the date offered. Just thinking of this took my mind off the enjoyment of the evening. I realized that there was no changing my decision. I could have theoretically called him up and requested to hang out, but then I would have lost time and may be perceived as fickle and dishonest. The date was no longer viable for the evening. The opportunity was no longer a cost to staying where I was.

This was a cost in opportunity at the time of the question. And there I was, contemplating on the price when it was no longer something necessary to worry on. The focus on what was sacrificed imposes further costs to any further benefits already being garnered in an evening of enjoyment. Once anyone comes to a decision, they shouldn’t worry about potential debts. They can’t fix it. We can’t hit pause or rewind. And if we could, why - we’d run out of batteries in our remotes for playing with the buttons.

Stop letting thoughts undermine present enjoyment. The lesson of opportunity costs reveals a lesson in guilt for future decision making strategies. It shouldn’t make us feel worse – as this is much like self-flagellation. This leads to a depression of sorts again, invoking future costs.

I make the mistake of pondering what could have been all the time. Thankfully, I can look at the lessons of Economics concerning Opportunity Costs, and realize that what will be, will be. Someone I once knew said, “Que sera, sera.”
I make the mistake of pondering what could have been all the time. Thankfully, I can look at the lessons of Economics concerning Opportunity Costs, and realize that what will be, will be. Someone I once knew said, “Que sera, sera.”

Much Ado About Me

2008-08-17T15:36:00.000-07:00

I’m an LII, "Four-Flag" aspiring PT, influenced by classic individualism. My faith on the human condition is structured by human action and market anarchism.

Every action I take is a step towards self-satisfaction. This requires the removal of the things which dissatisfy me – otherwise I wouldn’t be acting now would I? What pins me down? What keeps me from tranquility?

I’m collecting dust if only for this year. The private library I’m working for keeps me bound with lines of family history. I sometimes struggle against the webbing of networks while peering at the mute red computer backgrounds. Every once in a while the screens will dance with secrets of people whom tread the dead web for life. That’s where we meet and discuss; comfortable behind our two-way mirrors.

When the dust settles from my endeavor it is my goal to leave it behind and strive for attendance at UNLV. If the winds pick up – I would love to attend Ludwig von Mises Institute.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito" - Virgil's Aeneid, Book VI

Until then, if I paced by, you may catch a breeze of guaiac wood warmed with vanilla. You’d realize that bergamot and mandarin had entered the building. My eyes are failing so forgive me, I wouldn’t dare to look; I’d have to glare to see your face so I’d wander without a glance.

I would order more Dry Martinis; however, the bartenders disagree about the ratio of Noilly Prat to Junipero Dry. I prefer a 3rd of an ounce of vermouth balanced with 2 ounces of the light, spicy and subtle delicacy of perfection. I may prefer a rind if I feel a bit zesty. Olives are traditional.

If we traded whispers in the corner, my voice would taste dry and assertive. I may come across as chilled as the ice melted in my drink. If you’re lucky you’ll find I’m far warmer when touched. You may find I’m only quiet for now.

If you are like the rest of the bawdy drinkers, you’ll find me boorish. You may imagine I have an eyebrow raised with an internal sneer.

I’m content either way. I’m listening to "One Evening" by Feist. Maybe if you listen in between the breaths we take, you’ll hear my hesitation.

..The evening was long, my guesses were true
you saw me see you.
That something you said, the timing was right;
the pleasure was mine.

The time and the place, the look on your face
sincerest of eyes.
If you're ready or not, the state of our hearts;
there's no time to take..

What We're Both Looking For

2008-08-17T15:26:00.000-07:00

If you’re serious about finding someone special, whether as a friend, comrade or partner, read the entire entry. I’m a conceptual thinker with clearly delineated views. LII’s are the ones who plan organizational structures. We are think-tanks. Everything we do is to establish clarity of thought and perception.

We tend to explore a plethora of ideologies so as to refine our conclusions. What I see as a pervasive or dominant ideal influencing everyone and their sister, others find as having little to do with their every day lives. However; if you’re close to us, you’ll probably have been influenced by our convictions and have already adopted similar perspectives.

"Just because" is not something we'd say. "Cogito ergo sum", "cogito cogito ergo cogito sum", or even the frank "coitus ergo sum" may summarize our thoughts if in a humorous medium. Everything we do or say has a reason; if pressed we'll explain very clearly why we did it.

Analysts reduce things to their most essential aspects and then recreate them bottom up or top - down. This is where our theoretical tendencies can leave us out of reality. "Crackpot" is a proper invective when applied to our notions which are apparently absurd to others. Absurd as it may be, I draw notions from founts of data. We are in tune with the "big picture". Because of this, we readily see how our vision of reality would improve the structure in place. Descartes thought only of us.

We're acutely aware of social convention as far as etiquette goes. However; we have fine tuned the art of stepping on people's toes. It makes sense as to why I prefer isolated environments where formalities don't have to be exchanged. I have a natural inclination to defend my ideas strongly thus alienating others. We cannot help but express ourselves. We’re system-builders. If an idea of ours is criticized – you’ve attacked a part of us that we live by. Thus why we're uncomfortable with making instinctive choices (we’re human – we still make them). One could ask what our favorite color is and most would react with an answer. We actually ponder the question if momentarily to draw a conclusion. (My personal favorites are sable, charcoal, and crimson. The reasons are too numerous to list. I also derive pleasure from shaping my environment in aesthetically pleasing arrangements. Apparently my type is prone to this.)

It makes sense why I have such an Anarchist bent. It seems I was born to rebel. Authority holds no interest for us. Most of us resort to criticizing the authority blatantly – and this is where we are known as ‘rebels’. If criticized for this, our frustration saturates. We ignore rules, concepts and directives that don’t suit us. We are characterized by independence. (Utilizing inferential statistics we comprise no more than 1% of the populace and are thought of as the most independent type). We have an uncompromising need for absolute freedom.

We’re best complimented by types similar to us at least in traits or ideologies. By nature we are demanding and we unfortunately approach all relations in a rational manner. We take life very seriously and are best complimented (contrary to what we like to admit) when others show us a lighter side to reality. This means, you need to be socially awkward, crack horrible laffy-taffy jokes, and maintain a thick skin by laughing at life but not at others. I’ll be attracted immensely if you’re eccentric in appearance and mind. I can’t help but love something that goes against the norm.

If you’re looking for the epitome of a stable, reliable and dedicated partner – look no further. We may be oddballs that laugh at the strangest times, but harmony in relationships and home life is extremely important to us.