This is a restricted-access
website. The contents of this
website, the links contained therein directly
and indirectly, and the contents of the said
links, are copyrighted. They
are provided exclusively for access and
non-profit educational use by the students
currently enrolled in this course and for the
duration of this semester. Any other use or
any access or use by others, without
authorization of the professor in this course
and copyright holder or holders, is not
allowed.No
picture taking, videotaping, or recording
without professor's prior permission is
allowed in class.
Lecture Notes
These
Lecture
Notes
supplement
the
textbook
with
additional
explanations
of
fundamental
ethical,
legal,
philosophical,
and
methodological
issues.
They
also
provide
additional
and
sometimes
controversial
references
and
quotations
(for
critical
reading
only
and not
endorsements) and illustrations with current
developments. The Lecture Notes are not supposed
to substitute for or correct the textbook, which
all the students are required to read, as
indicated in the syllabus. Although the
Lecture Notes have been carefully compiled based
on their author's expertise and experience, and
attempt to offer rational and factual (to the
best author's knowledge) representation of the
relevant issues and events, the students are
free to and solely responsible for shaping
their views, opinions, and believes,
particularly, on all ethical and philosophical
(but not
legal) matters. For it is theirs, and only
theirs, individual choice to accept or to reject
the perspectives presented below. None of the
expressions posted on this website should be
interpreted as legal advice: when in doubt what
is legal and what is not in any particular
circumstance, please, consult an attorney.
External
links in categories Current Issues
through the Lecture Notes as well as the links
without URL addresses not identified as
"readings" are auxiliary or provided as
illustrations only and will not be the subject of
testing.
"The trouble
with the world is not that people know too
little, but that they know so many things
that ain't so."
Is
refers to the status quo, or nature. It
expresses a fact.
Ought refers
to a socially desired states of
affairs that may or may not be natural
or actually achieved. It expresses an
obligation
(for instance, a moral obligation,
sometimes referred to as a value).
Automatically
concluding ought from
is,
like in:
"Mr. Brown is
in possession of this diamond
therefore he ought
to possess it"
is called
naturalistic
fallacy.
Deriving moral obligations
(or values) from facts is a form of
naturalistic fallacy.
Although our morality is affected by the
reality that we live in, our moral
obligations (values) are often
subjective and are not necessarily
dictated by the objective facts.
(Caution:
The term naturalistic fallacy
is notorious for abuse and misuse. It
is sometimes used as a justification
of denial of facts.
Also, concluding ought from
has been
may be statistically valid, even if it
is logically invalid. The improper use of the
term naturalistic fallacy
in order to refute statistical facts
of that sort is referred to as naturalistic
fallacy fallacy.)
Automatically concluding is from ought, like
in:
"People ought
to have a right to a no-cost big
screen TV therefore there is a right
of the people to a no-cost big screen
TV"
is a fallacy, too. It
is called
moralistic
fallacy. (It's closely
related to judicial activism. Also, ideologies are
often based on one or more moralistic
fallacies.)
A
common form of moralistic fallacy is
deriving
factual conclusions from moral
obligations (or moral values).
Although our morality is affected by
the reality that we live in, a
denial of facts solely on the
grounds that they offend our sense
of morality (or our obligations) is
an invalid
and potentially harmful form of reasoning.
Another recently common form of moralistic fallacy is deriving factual conclusions from political goals and objectives (or political values), for instance, from political objective to make all people equal deriving a fact that all people are equally good, productive, talented, etc. This form of moralistic fallacy is often characteristic of politicized science thus stripping the politicized science of status of being an unquestionably reliable/credible instrument of cognition and a source of truth.
Laws of nature, or facts,
provide
the meaning to is.
Rules (postulates and
norms) of ethics, or values, provide
the meaning to ought.
Example.
Law of nature: 2 + 2 is 4
Example.
Rule of ethics: One ought not
take bribes.
Ethics
and Morality
Ethics is a set of
postulates and norms, just like logic
is a set of axioms (for instance, "P
or not P") and rules of inference (for
instance, modus ponens).
Morality is a system
of beliefs about what is right and
what is wrong. In addition to
believes, it may or may not have any
rules.
(Caution. We
will not distinguish between right
and moral,
and between wrong and immoral,
although there are subtle differences
between these attributes in the
context of ethics.
Also, adjective ethical
is often used in the meaning or right
or moral,
and adjective unethical
is often used in the meaning of wrong
or immoral.)
Ethics is a theory of
right and wrong.
It is a theory of
morality.
Right and wrong in
ethics are like truth and falsehood
in logic.
Example. 2 + 2 < 4
is false.
Example. Taking bribes
is wrong.
Morality
is the meaning of ethics.
Current
issues:
`Global epidemic
of blindness' on the
horizon, experts warn: Hours spent
staring at screens 'will rob millions
of their sight decades early'
"Heavy
marijuana use in the late teen years puts men at a
higher risk for death by age 60, a new
long-term study suggests.
"Cannabis users have poorer
health in general. You'd expect
there to be increased mortality risk,"
Krakower told CBS News. He pointed to
another long-term study linking early
heavy marijuana use with lung
cancer, and a second study that
associates the drug with increased heart
problems.
Fentanyl
makes its way from Chinese labs to Baltimore
streets, with deadly
consequences
"In a
laboratory somewhere in China, a chemist is
producing the fentanyl that will kill an
opioid user in Maryland."
"From China — the largest producer of
fentanyl worldwide — the drug is sent
daily by plane or ship to Mexico, where
traffickers and truckers push it along
well-worn paths of illicit narcotics north to
the United States."
"This much is known by U.S. authorities. They’re
intercepting increasing amounts of fentanyl.
But they’ve been unable to make
much of a dent in the trade."
"Fentanyl
deaths outpaced homicides in Baltimore for
the first time last year, and began outpacing
heroin deaths this year."
Comment (MS): One of the things we get from People's Republic of
China. So much for a "victimless crime".
China Is Using
Fentanyl as ‘Chemical Warfare,’
Experts Say
Behind the deadly opioid
epidemic ravaging communities across the
United States lies a carefully planned
strategy by a hostile foreign power that
experts describe as a “form of chemical
warfare.”
It involves
the production and trafficking of
fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that caused
the deaths of
more than 32,000 Americans in
2018 alone, and fentanyl-related
substances.
China is the
“largest source” of illicit fentanyl in
the United States, a November 2018 report
by the U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission stated.
Legality vs. Morality
(Criminal law versus
rules of ethic)
Laws are enforceable
(at least, in theory), rules of ethics are
generally not, unless they
coincide with laws.
Harm done to
somebody or society is often a
precondition for punishment for a
violation of the law, but is not
a precondition for applicability of a
rule of ethics.
"I did not harm
anyone" is never a moral excuse.
It is not a legal excuse, either, if
harm was done to the society, an
example of which is the proverbial
"stealing from the commons" (sometimes
referred to as the "victimless"
crime).
Usually,
acting ethically and doing the right thing does
not put the actor in the conflict with
the law. But being just law-abiding does
not necessarily make one a good person.
What is legal doesn't
have to be right.
The above disparity
between
morality and legality has profound
reasons and cannot be eliminated. Laws define what
kind of behavior is asocial
(unacceptable by the society) to the
point that it warrants a punishment. Laws
do not define what is right and what
is wrong, and they are not
supposed to. When the laws and those who
enforcement them do not conform to the
social intuition of right and wrong, the
laws are being changed or ignored (the
latter are called blue laws) and those who wrongly
impose or enforce them, well, let me
quote form the Declaration of
Independence:
"whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new
Government"
Note that the above quote
strongly suggests that what the U.S.
actually is depends on the People who
are the source of all governmental
powers. As such, it debunks the myth of
peoples' interchangeability.
The disparity between morality and legality implies that just because someone has
a right to do something does not
automatically make it right. In
particular, freedom of speech does not
imply that everything that one is free
to say is right and deserves to be
applauded. Or that the listeners are not
free to judge the speaker based on his
opinions that he has expressed.
Remember,
there is a big
difference between approval,
praise,
and tolerance. One can
tolerate certain condition (say, a mild
viral infection) or behavior of others
(say, offensive speech) while
disapproving of it (never mind praising
it) at the same time.
Many of us may tolerate unethical or
illegal behavior of others while
disapproving such a behavior. Also, many
of us may tolerate the disrespecting of
what we hold dear (for instance, the
flag, the nation, the Republic, and the
Constitutions that stands for it) while
politely voicing our disapproval of such
disrespect.
Expression of disapproval is
not necessarily a sign of intolerance.
However, an insistence that genuine
tolerance must include an approval, or
even praise, is an expression of
profound intolerance (to the opposing
views). The latter is antithetical to
the concept of individual liberty.
For instance, an idea that
one must praise disrespecting of his
morality in order to prove his genuine
tolerance is itself profoundly
intolerant and - therefore -
hypocritical. It amounts to an
imposition of believes under the false
pretext of "tolerance".
The Golden Rule
"Do unto others as you
would have them do to you"
(as
opposed to:"Don't do to others what
you can't get away with").
The above is an active
form of the Golden Rule, a.k.a. positive
form.
Passive (weak) form of the Golden
Rule, a.k.a. negative
form:
"Do not do to
others what you do not want them to
do to you"
The
Golden Rule is a simple principle
that facilitates getting along with other
people. Thus it facilitates formation of a well-functioning society.
Applicability domain of principles and rules
(as opposed to universalism; a
restriction of applicablity of
principles and rules to their
respective domains is
not to
be confused with relativism.)
Example.
Non-applicability 4th and 5th Amendments to an
invading army.
It
seems clear that applying the Golden Rule towards
individuals who do not abide by it, for
instance, towards those who are lacking empathy, in
particular, to psychopaths, would
give them unfair advantage over normal
persons. (After all, why would we want to
get along with the psychopaths? They pose
a serious danger to others.)
Golden
Rule is not universal. It applies
only within certain domain of
discourse. For instance, it does not
apply to soldiers of invading army.
A weaker negative form
of the Golden Rule:
"Do not do to
others what you do not expect them
to do to you (under the
circumstances)"
The Golden Rule
changes its meaning depending on the domain of
applicability.
Relativism
Relativism rejects
existence of absolute categories, for
example, categories true,
right,
moral.
"Relativism is the idea that views are
relative to differences in perception
and consideration. There is no
universal, objective truth according to
relativism; rather each point of view
has its own truth."
Comment (MS): It is well known (in
first-order logic) that mathematical truth
is neither formally definable nor
decidable. This, however, does
not imply that truth does not
objectively exist (for otherwise, we
would have to reject the entire modern
mathematics, together with computers
that are based on it). One
can speculate that some relativists
reject the existence of objective
truth because they were unable to
pass a rigorous mathematical logic
class. Thus they appear to reject existence of things that they don't understand.
In fact,
reality (and - therefore - truth)
is what it is, whether we like it
or not. But relativism claims that
reality is what is perceived or
considered to be, so it asserts
that there are different
(parallel) realities, each being
specific for a particular point of
view. Such an assertion is an
instance of moralistic
fallacy and has no
scientific evidence and it
contradicts main-stream modern
science, and so does relativism.
Because objective truth is one of the fundamental concepts in modern science and relativism rejects existence of objective truth, relativism is anti-scientific.
Relativism is
self-refuting because it summarily
rejects objective truthfulness. If what
it claims (that there is no such thing
as objectively true theory) is correct
then it in itself is not an objective
true theory. The self-refuting paradigm
here is similar to the one in the
following sentence S:
No sentence is
objectively true.
Clearly, if S is objectively true then S
is not objectively true. Therefore, S is
not objectively true. And so is relativism (not
objectively true, that is). Therefore,
Relativism is not
objectively true.
Relativism is one
of the core doctrines of post-modernism.
Thus post-modernism inherits all the flaws
and paradoxes of relativism (in particular,
self-refutation).
Postmodernism,
also spelled post-modernism, in Western
philosophy, a late 20th-century movement
characterized by broad skepticism,
subjectivism, or relativism;
a general suspicion of reason; and an acute
sensitivity to the role of ideology
in asserting and maintaining political and
economic power.
Some scientists
characterize post-modernism as
anti-modernism, with some of them
refering to it as "fashionable nonsense", while
some others see it as an academic attempt of
power grab.
Post-modernism is
generally hostile to American
Constitutional Republic and to those
(labeled as "Conservatives") who are
willing to preserve it.
Because reason is one of the fundamental means of cognition in modern science and postmodernism rejects reason as a valid means of cognition, postmodernism is anti-scientific.
Since
post-modernism rejects reason as a means of cognition, it
is self-refuting because it does not
offer any other practical means
(like experiment) for its validation
or justification than (quite
convoluted and unconvincing)
reasoning. In other words,
post-modernism claims to provide a
reason to reject reason, so if
post-modernism is correct in its
claims then its justification (a
reason) must be rejected according
to its own standards (it summarily
rejects reason). Which leaves it as
an unjustified claim (if it is
correct), among a huge number of
other unjustified claims, or false
(otherwise).
Post-modernism,
often referred to as deconstruction,
does appear to attempt to stop and
reverse the actual progress in modern
science for ideological reasons, one
of which being - ostensibly -
"progress". As such, it appears to be
an atavistic trend in contemporary
philosophy towards a pre-modern irrational culture.
Characterizing it as "progress" is
deceptive and Orwellian.
In fact, Post-modernism is an ideology of
cognitive failure as it tends to reject existence of things that some cannot understand (hence, deconstruction).
It falls into the category of intellectual
corruption.
Similarly to Marxism, that
according to Marx was a historic
inevitability, the prefix "post"
in "post-modernism" appears to have the same modality; it
suggests that modernism is a passe
and post-modernism is predestined to
become the new standard.
One of the conclusions of
moral relativism is a common claim that no ethical system is better
than another. As a
consequence, it entails approval (or tolerance) of all moral values
and judgments as long as they are
not illegal. This reduces morality
to legality,
which mutilates a necessarily complex
ethical theory, turning it into a
simplistic (and, therefore,
inadequate) system.
Moral relativism: Legal
=> Moral
Moral relativism =>
Nothing that is legal is immoral.
One of the fundamental flaws in
moral-relativist reasoning lies
beneath the fact that it incorporates
meta-ethical
statements into ethics (for
instance, a statement that there are different
societies that adhere to different
ethical systems and underlying
moralities so that one should not judge
actions of others based on one's own
sense of right and wrong).
The
above flaw leads to a paradox
similar to the liar's paradox.
For instance, moral relativism (as opposed to moral realism)
imples that although various moral
systems, cultures, and civilizations
(or societies) may be diferent from
one another, they cannot be
objectively judged as better or worse
than one another. This leads to such absurd conclusions as asserting that socialism (in
particular, Stalin-style Marxian
socialism, Mao-Tse-Tung-style
Marxian socialism, or Hitler-style
non-Marxian national socialism that
led to genocide of tens of millions
of inocent civillians) are just
different cultures that are neither
better or worse than Western
individualism. Or that the
culture and morality of murder (by
beheading) and destruction professed
by some ISIS "extremists" is just
different than ours and is not to be
condemned.
Western legal doctrine (applies to criminal
trials): Everyone is innocent
until proven guilty.
As a matter of fact, it can
be justified with the Golden Rule.
(Exercise:
Find this doctrine: "Innocent until
proven guilty" in the U.S.
Constitution and its Amendments.
opportunism:
the policy or practice, as in
politics, business, or one's personal
affairs, of adapting actions,
decisions, etc., to expediency or
effectiveness regardless of the
sacrifice of ethical principles.
Thus moral relativism + legalism encourageopportunism.
Conclusion:
Moral
relativism implies a permission to reject the Golden Rule.
In the context of legalism, moral relativism rejects
the Golden Rule.
Current issues
(well, it was a year ago) cont'd
Richest/Poorest
States: How is your state's credit?
and
an
updated quote, plus a new one (as of Nov.
2013):
"For
the third year
in a row, California is the worst-run state in
America."
"It
also noted the state’s “highly volatile
revenue structure,” due to its over reliance on wealthy taxpayers. The
Golden State was also among the worst states
in the nation for educational attainment,
health coverage, and unemployment."
And all
this above-mentioned worst-level performance
in educational attainment is "accomplished" to the
tune of humongous government spending of
70 billion dollars
a year for CA public schools; see Education Budget http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/eb/
A grain of salt ...
Poor ranking on international test
misleading about U.S. student
performance, Stanford researcher finds
"Based on their
analysis, the co-authors found that
average U.S. scores in reading and
math on the PISA are low partly
because a disproportionately greater
share of U.S. students comes from
disadvantaged social class groups,
whose performance is relatively low in
every country.
"As part of
the study, Carnoy and Rothstein
calculated how international rankings on
the most recent PISA might change if the
United States had a social class
composition similar to that of
top-ranking nations: U.S.
rankings would rise to sixth from 14th
in reading and to 13th from 25th in
math. The gap between U.S.
students and those from the
highest-achieving countries would be cut
in half in reading and by at least a
third in math.
Comment
(MS): The education reform that
begun in 1960s seemed to contribute to the
problem, too.
The best
and worst states for small business
Red tape blues
"To be sure, low-tax
states such as Texas generally score well,
while high-tax
states such as California and Illinois flunk their tests."
ThePerfect
Axiom for the Golden Rule:
Everybody follows it (does to
others what he would have them do
to him), and
everybody
wants everyone else to follow it,
and
everybody
wants everyone else to want
everyone else to follow it,
and so on.
...
In
particular, the second part (everybody wants everyone else to follow it)
implies a necessity
of being judgmental. The above axiom does assert
consensus of what people like/dislike.
Universalism asserts
universal applicability of rules. Its axioms have a form
For
all x, P(x)
or
For
all x, not P(x).
Universalism
presents an easy to understand (and - therefore
attractive), albeit simplistic, description of
reality. As it is the case with many other
simplistic world-views, universalism fails to correctly capture
the concepts it purports to characterize.
Thus social systems based on it exhibit
absurd and often dangerous properties.
In particular,
universalism does not leave much room for desert
(which is a philosophical concept in this context; see a definition of desert2).
In universalistic justice, either everybody
has a right or nobody has it, as opposed to
the idea that some may deserve
it and others may not.
For
instance, an obvious observation that some
individuals may deserve to be respected
while some others may not goes
against the idea of universalist
justice.
(One
earns respect, as opposed to being
"entitled" to it.)
Example:Universal Basic Income (UBI) proposals are aiming at paying all or selected (by income level or similar characteristics) individuals regardless of whether they deserve it or not. For instance, those exhibiting evil behavior (for instance, non-working violent criminals) are generally eligible for UBI at the expense of working ethical and law-abiding Americans.
As it is argued elsewhere in these Lecture Notes, undeserved rewards make it more difficult to eliminate evil (in particular, violence) from the society. Moreover, they tend to decrease society's belief in a just world (a.k.a. BJW - click here for a discussion) thus discouraging cooperation and investment.
Human universalism is a universalistisic
doctrine that insists on the universal
nature of mankind. It "implies that it is
possible to apply generalized norms, values,
or concepts to all people and cultures,
regardless of the contexts in which they are
located". It usually augments moral relativism. Its appeal is often based
on and instance of moralistic fallacy
(all people ought
to be equally good, productive, talented,
etc., therefore they are equally
good, productive, talented, etc.) that is
known in psychology under the name of projection. In particular, it falsely assumes, even if implicitly so, that no individuals (or just a very few of all mankind) have a natural propensity to commit evil acts.
Projection
is the attribution of one's own (and
often sinister)
tendencies to others. It manifests
itself in (usually, unconsciously)
assuming that others share the same or
similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or
positions on a given subject. It may
also manifest itself in transferring
one's own culpability on
others. Projection is an instance of moralistic
fallacy.
Human
universalism leads to an unproven belief (often a
result of projection)
that all groups and
cultures are equal, and falsely assumes
uniform human potential of all individuals.
It also falsely assumes that different peoples are interchangeable
in that their societies' functionality does
not depend on who they actually are, as if
they were a fungible commodity.
To
see the absurdity of the above assumption,
think of replacing the American People
with 300 millions of talentless and
opportunistic villains and try to
predict if the result is going to be a
"dream" nation or a nightmare.
This realization also shows that the "American Dream"
is not just "a collection of ideas" (a
flawed definition advocated in some
political science courses) or a
"proposition nation" (the same,
advocated by some politicians) but a
phenomenon that is predicated upon
such realities as the actual
composition of the American nation,
structure of the Republic (that
promotes and protects individual
rights and responsibilities), and the
wealth produced by its economy (it is
doubtful if the "American Dream" could
have been duplicated in an
economically insolvent country).
Thus it does matter who the American
people are. Great peoples, as long as they are free,
create great countries. If
all peoples were equal then all
countries would have been (roughly)
equal, too. But they are dramatically
not equal, therefore, the peoples are
not, either.
The
implementation
of universalist transformation of the mankind does
not come easily, so human universalists must lower the standards
in order to accommodate all equally.
For instance, academic and employment
standards, and some legal standards, are being relaxed in order to
accommodate all.
Also,
the said implementation of universalist transformationleads
to restrictionsof individual
liberties (particularly,
the right to keep and bear arms) in order
to mitigate the risks resulting from
infusion of violent individuals
(who are considered equal to all other
individuals) into the free society.
A
paradox of human universalism is that if
diversity matters (it actually does matter)
then people of different backgrounds are
different; in particular, they are not
interchangeable. For if they weren't then
how could mixing the same, interchangeable
people make any difference? If we
were all the same and interchangeable (which
they are not - see, for instance, world
homicide rates), as
human universalism insists, then there
would be no clear benefits of mixing us
(but there are clear benefits of mixing us).
The
fact is that diversity does matter as it
allows for meaningful and constructive
competition which is the driving force of
progress. (If we were all the
same, competition would have been but a
waste of time and resources, and there
would be no sustainable progress.)
The fact is that people
are not interchangeable (and -
therefore - not the same), which explains
why individualist societies that respect
that fact fare better than
collectivist societies. Moreover, the
assertion of human interchangeability is a
notorious excuse for treating people like livestock
(a fungible commodity).
Human
universalism
attempts
to have it both ways (we all are equal and we
are not equal at the same time, depending on
what the claimant wants to prove, quite a kettle
logic). From these contradictory
assumptions one can prove everything (like that one is the Pope
- we will discuss this later)
Those
warriors of ISIS who
behead human beings in front of cameras
and seem to enjoy it are definitely not equal to
you and me. The culture that led to
such barbaric acts is not equal to the
culture that prevails in the Western
countries. And so Hitler
and his collaborators were not equal to
you and me (Al Capone, Charles Manson, and
other violent criminals are/were not,
either). The genocidal system that they
created was not just another culture that is
just different than ours and neither better
nor worse than ours. Asserting human universalism is clearly absurd
in this context.
In particular, human universalism
ignores the obvious fact that not everyone
is a "good guy" and that there are
individuals and groups who prefer predatory or
parasitic tactics rather than to
content themselves with the fruits of their
own productivity. From that perspective,
what human universalism does is to make
those who subscribe to it vulnerable to
abuse and violation. It facilitates hostile takeovers of
peaceful nations by belligerent
(combative) ones. It appears that
some of the latter use human universalism to
dismantle defenses of the former.
A
visible consequence of imposition of the
doctrine of human universalism is a
trend to re-inject bad guys (e.g., convicted
lawbreakers) into communities of the good
ones (in particular, the law-abiding), in
the name of "inclusiveness".
Since many of these bad guys may try to hurt
the good ones, such a re-injection leads,
eventually, to restrictions of
Constitutional liberties, for instance, to gun
control. For instance, if a violent parolee
kills someone, the human universalists
are quick to blame the "availability of guns" for that, and not his
re-injection into community. Another
visible consequence are calls to abolish
national borders. Both have
profoundly detrimental
consequences on morality of the
society as they are causing regress in
evolution of morality, which - in turn - makes the society as a whole less
functional. (We will discuss this
topic from a more general perspective later on.)
Thus universalism (in
particular, human universalism)
leads to absurd conclusions and, therefore, is
a logically and
scientifically invalid
doctrine. And the
universalists, in a way characteristic
to moral relativists, will appeal to
your tolerance and non-judgmental in
order to get away with these
absurdities and paradoxes.
But
in today's reality, tolerance and universalism
contradict each other. If one is tolerant,
he should tolerate the fact that not all
people are equal. So, anyone who rejects a
lack of equality or supports socioeconomic,
if not physical, leveling is intolerant. As
a matter of fact, devoted promotion of
the leveling as the overriding objective of
social engineering squarely falls under the
definition of bigotry.
Universalism
naturally leads to a gradual eradication of nations-states and
imposition of global governance
(hence, globalism).
Such eventuality has some similar effects to
invasion. From the software
engineering perspective, it is like trying
to replace a well-structured program with a
monolithic "spaghetti" program - a step that
would be clearly detrimental to the program's
correctness, efficiency, and
maintainability. (Unstructured programming was the
early methodology of software engineering
that was prone to errors and
inefficiencies. It was replaced with
structured programming. Structured
programming has many known advantages,
such as better efficiency and correctness;
it leaves less room for propagation of
errors and failures.)
A
historic example of tragic consequences of a
lack of effective border enforcement between
nations was Mongol invasion of Europe (1239 - 1242). (Using analogy with software
engineering, it was like error propagation
in poorly structured program with cascade
of failures that the said propagation
caused.)
What
are
the
consequences
of
universal
applicability
of
the
Golden
Rule?
Some
are paradoxical, like an
attempt to apply it to the soldiers of
invading army. (Recall what does human universalism ignore).
The Perfect Axiom
for the Golden Rule precludes its universal
applicability.
(c) no consensus on what
people like/dislike (a consequence of globalism)
If any of the above is the case
then the Golden Rule
becomes meaningless. Such is a
well-known consequence of globalism.
Mind you that the Golden Rule is a simple principle that facilitates getting along with other people - it facilitates formation of a well-functioning society. Therefore, the consequences of elimination of the Golden Rule must necessarily be destructive to the coherence of the society.
An apt
quote regarding item (b):
All that
is necessary for the triumph of evil
is that good men do nothing.
Comment by
MS. The authors
wrongly blamed looting in the U.S. on
American individualism, and failed to
acknowledge the
most obvious possible reason for a lack
of looting in Japan: the prevalent
ethics of the Golden Rule. One
needs to acknowledge that looting is to a
large extent a morality problem.
Summer
2015 ...
CALIFORNIA Willow
Fire evacuees discover they've been
burglarized
Monday, August 03, 2015 11:00PM MADERA
COUNTY, Calif. (KFSN)
Families forced out of
their homes due to the Willow Fire
returned to even more problems after
burglars broke in to a row of houses.
Home owners say sometime over the last
few days thieves stole thousands of
dollars of stuff from their homes while
the area was under mandatory
evacuations.
The fire is now 5700 acres and 70%
contained.
Summary
Moral
relativism,
universalism,
and
non-judgmentalism contradict
or reject
the Golden Rule.
Comment
on the misapplication of the innocent
until proven guilty legal
doctrine to ethics, and the erosion of the Golden Rule
Extension of the innocent
until proven guilty legal
doctrine beyond the scope of its
applicability (criminal trial) has a
serious, lasting, and detrimental effect
on the prevalence of the Golden Rule
in our society.
If social disapproval of
an act by an individual is predicated
upon a proof of guilt of the said
individual then many violators of the Golden
Rule will not suffer negative
consequences of their asocial behavior. Those violators
will likely benefit from their
misbehavior.
The
reason why the Golden Rule and other
rules of ethics were adopted was not that wedecided
to have a society based on it.
The Golden Rule and
other rules of
ethics were adopted
because those who
followed them
(including the whole
society) were
rewarded and those
who did not were
likely to lose
(eventually).
This is how our society
and its underlying ethics have
evolved
into what we are having now.
The
fallouts of the "subprime mortgage"
crisis provide an example of
how rewarding
unethical behavior
promotes this negation of
the Golden Rule:
"By
all means, do to others what you can
get away with; anything else is not
recommended"
and inflicts
lasting damage to the society.
It is a prime example how the government can
turn ethical nation onto opportunistic one.
The
federal government on Wednesday
announced a new loan modification
program designed to help many more
struggling homeowners than previous
initiatives by requiring no documentation of income or
financial hardship.
Under the Streamlined
Modification Initiative, borrowers with
loans backed by mortgage finance giants
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must
be at least 90 days delinquent on
their mortgages and make three
trial payments on time. The initiative
is being launched by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which
regulates Fannie and Freddie.
Half of
loan modifications re-default within 18
months – California usage of ARMs at
near record lows signifies home buyer
psychology.
But
even when "strategic default" makes economic
sense, many homeowners don't out of
fear and guilt.
"A large number of Americans
who are underwater on their mortgages
would be better off financially if
they walked away from their homes,"
says Brent White, a University of
Arizona real estate expert. "They don't because we have a
double standard...individuals are told
they have a moral obligation to pay
their mortgages and corporations
understand that contracts are to be
breached when it's not economically
efficient."
For how can one duly enforce laws it
the majority of the people are
unethical?
One cannot.
Even if the government has sweeping
powers and law enforcement agencies
can catch every lawbreaker, how can
one make sure that the government
(elected from and by unethical people)
and law enforcement agencies (drawn
from unethical people) actually
perform their sworn duty?
One cannot.
Apt
question addressed by Plato:
"Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes?"
(in
loose translation: "Who
will watch the watchers?")
In particular, honesty is what is
usually expected of individuals in the
U.S. If one does not want to be cheated
by others, the Golden Rule dictates that
he does not cheat.
A new
survey has found that a
third of young millennials in the
U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is
actually round. The
national poll reveals that 18 to
24-year-olds are the largest group
in the country who refuse to accept
the scientific facts of the world’s
shape.
Comment (M.S.): Is it because
some of their postmodernist
instructors taught them that there
is no objective truth?
In amoral and - therefore - prevailingly
unethical societies unethical people must be
watched by law enforcement. But since, in such
a hypothetical scenario, law enforcement is
about as unethical as the people are, law
enforcement must be watched by "super" law
enforcement. But since, in such a case,
"super" law enforcement is about as unethical
as the people and law enforcement are, "super"
law enforcement must be watched by
"super-super" law enforcement. Etc., etc. (the
flat-Earth theory scheme.)
Here
is a poetic quote form T.S. Eliot on
futility of efferts to build an amoral
society:
They constantly try to
escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that
no one will need to be good.
[T.
S. Eliot - won a Nobel Prize in Literature in 1948]
Note. If the
primary purpose of society is a group
survival strategy then disarming its
law-abiding members appears utterly absurd. It
also makes it more difficult for the
individuals to defend their individual rights and liberties when such
rights and liberties are being
infringed upon or taken away.
"The law
of self-preservation is higher
than written law".
-
Thomas Jefferson
But then, how do you exercise your
right given to you by the law of
self-preservation when your assailants are armed and you
are not?
The law of self-preservation articulated by Jefferson, and your right to self-defense that the law of self-preservation implies, are logical consequences of your fundamental right to life confirmed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the U.S.
"China’s
state media used Donald Trump’s inauguration
as U.S. president to warn about the perils of
democracy, touting the relative
stability of the Communist system"
China Ties Future
to Xi as Lawmakers Repeal Term Limits
Country’s rubber-stamp legislature
votes to amend constitution
China’s parliament voted to repeal
presidential term limits, allowing President
Xi Jinping to keep power indefinitely
in a formal break from succession rules set up
after Mao Zedong’s turbulent rule.
All
but five
of the almost 3,000 National People’s
Congress deputies present
Sunday supported the measure to
strike a constitutional provision barring the
president from serving more than two
consecutive terms. The amendment -- announced by the
Communist Party two weeks ago --
removes the only barrier keeping Xi, 64, from
staying on after his expected second term ends
in 2023.
Comment (MS): Sometimes democracy
doesn't work as desired. One
needs to look into countries from the
socialist bloc (like former Soviet Union and
it's satellite "people's democracy"
countries) in order to notice limitations of
democracy. In this case, it was the
government that influenced elections
- a fairly typical phenomenon for many
democracies, including California. It
usually happens when one party maintains a
monopoly on power; this leads to a lack or
dysfunction of checks-and-balances and to a lack
of competition for voters that is
one of the foundations of government's
accountability to the electorate.
Here is some wider perspective.
When some American would-be totalitarians and would-be dictators look at People's Republic of China then they must realize that many mainland Chinese may be
a perfect people who are likely to elect totalitarians
to the monopoly of power, just like
they voted to allow President Xi
Jinping to keep power indefinitely; this would likely produce a de facto dictatorship. Then the first thing
that would-be totalitarians and would-be
dictators may try to do is to import enough of such people from the People's Republic of
China and award them voting rights in the
U.S. That would likely transform,
eventually, the American Republic onto a
political system of similar level of totalitarian,
monopolistic political power as the People's Republic of China is, now.
Would it be good for us, Americans? Just
look at what such a system does to the
Chinese in PRC and you will know the answer.
Coronavirus: Couple Quarantined in Windowless Box
The above video was posted at Daily Mail, the most popular newspaper in UK in 2020.
The Daily Mail has won the National Newspaper of the Year award from
the British Press Awards eight times, most recently, in 2019.
Here is a link to NBC News that also posted the above video and some more. These videos illustrate how people of People's Republic of China are treated by their own authorities. Such treatment is irreconcilable with the principles of individual rights and liberties that are guaranteed in the U.S. by the Bill of Rights and that we analyze and promote in this class.
Video appears to show people in China forcibly taken for quarantine over coronavirus
"A second video
posted Thursday on Twitter appears to show two people in the city of
Suzhou, which is also in Jiangsu Province, standing on a sidewalk
hugging before at least one of them is escorted into what looks like an
isolation container on the back of a government vehicle."
Below are excerpts from a report of archived hearing by the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
The Long Arm of China: Exporting Authoritarianism With Chinese Characteristics
"This hearing will examine the Chinese
government’s foreign influence operations intended to censor critical
discussion of its history and human rights record and to intimidate
critics of its repressive policies. Attempts
by the Chinese government to guide, buy, or coerce political influence
and control discussion of “sensitive” topics are pervasive, and pose
serious challenges in the United States and globally,
particularly as China uses technology and the lure of the Chinese
market to impose authoritarian practices abroad."
"This hearing is
the second in a series looking at China’s “long arm” and its impact on
universally recognized freedoms. Witnesses will discuss the Chinese government and Communist Party’s efforts to
interfere in multilateral institutions, threaten and intimidate rights
defenders and their families,impose censorship mechanisms on foreign
publishers and social media companies, and influence academic institutions
and critical analysis of China’s past history and present policies.
They will also offer recommendations for Congressional and
Administration action."
Comment (M.S.): Those Americans who are
considering to lend their support to socialism
may wish to answer to themselves this
question:
Do you want
to be treated as livestock?
If so then socialism
is not likely to disappoint you.
Also, remember, the Chinese brought their political
system on themselves.
No one imposed socialism on them. They just
believed in socialism's false
promises.
Here is some more on this:
'Coronavirus stabilising infection rate is
not a sign of relief' experts warn - DW News
There is mounting
evidence of the Chinese Communist Party’s infiltration of the West,
from harassing academics to stealing sensitive technology to allowing
the spread of deadly fentanyl.
America Essay Contest: From Singing ‘Red’ Songs to Living My American Dream
I was born in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China, right before the start of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
I lived with my parents and two younger brothers in government-owned
mud floored row-house style housing with seven other families.
...
Life then was very difficult for us.
Although my uneducated parents worked six days a week in a state
factory, we still relied on food rationing. Because my parents were
ordinary workers, our family was allowed only minimum amounts of rice,
meat, sugar, etc.
...
My mind was opened and my eyes were shining bright.
I could not go back to my old way of thinking and living under CCP
dictatorship. I had a new dream: I wanted to go to America, where
people have individual rights that cannot be taken away by their
government or by any other group.
I eventually made it to America in 1988 as a graduate student at the University of Texas
with nothing but a few clothes and mementos. Even though I spoke very
poor English, all the people in Texas were very welcoming and kind to
me. The staff in our graduate school donated clothing and household
items to me, and my classmates helped me to study class notes and learn
English. My neighbors would say “Howdy” to me and offer to take me
shopping.
Since then, I have enjoyed living in this great country:
got my graduate degree, got married, raised three children, started my
own business, searched for truth, learned more about my new country and
its founding principles, got rid of my indoctrination from China,
became a naturalized U.S. citizen, got involved at my local community
including my children’s charter school, testified before the Colorado
House and Senate, and ran for two offices. In the past three years, I
have been traveling the country to share my personal stories and
educate our youth about the truth of Communism.
I am so very blessed in America.
Today, I continue to manage my business that I started, and relish
every day the freedom, independence, and prosperity I found in America.
I love my new country and travel frequently throughout the United States to share the story of my American Dream. I want to preserve and defend America as the “Shining City on the Hill” for my children, for my fellow citizens and for all lovers of liberty in the world.
Constitutional Matters
Quick links by topic in the order they
were covered in class:
Constitution as the legal foundation, its purpose,
and interpretation
Constitution of the U.S. and its
Amendments as the foundation of legal
(and, to some extent, ethical) system in
the U.S., whether it pertains to computers
or not.
The purpose of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, and the meaning of the
class "We the People" ("people" is plural;
"person" is singular; see "People versus persons";
but beware of allegedly legal difference
between the two).
Preamble
to the Constitution outlines the purpose
of the Constitution:
"We the people
of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."
Comment 1:
So, these
are the People
(and not some "abstract" Constitution)
that have defined the
United States. This is why the
elections (as opposed to, say, unelected
judges who decide legal consequences of
the Constitution) are so important in
the U.S. It is not
because of some "abstract" axiom of
democracy that some see as a revelation
but because of the need to assure that
what we have defined is duly
respected and that our governments secure the "consent of the
governed" as postulated by the Declaration of
Independence and are accountable to their
constituences regarding the
said consent. Accountability
to We the People is
the key provision that makes the idea of
a government by the "consent of the
governed"enforceable
at all. Without it, we will likely become
subjugated to predatory powers that
parasitize on our productivity,
creativity, and wealth.
The above
comment explains why political monopolies
(when one party has a monopoly on
power) lead to
pathological forms of government;
the ruling party does not need to
compete for voters with its
non-existing or weak challengers, and
- therefore - is not accountable to
the electorate.
Comment 2: The phrase
"secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity" clearly
indicates how central to the intention of
the Constitution was the concept of
individual liberty.
Comment3:
Thus the
U.S. Constitution, although a sacrosanct
document, serves
as an instrument to protect, preserve, and sustain
the desirable state of affairs
already in place and to further
"perfect" the structure of the federal
government ("to form a more perfect
union") rather than to create a new
nation from scratch or to improve upon
it. Somewhat convoluted and lenghty
process prescribed for
ratifications of amendments is an
expression of the above sentiment to protect, preserve, and sustain,
as opposed to change, impose, or improve.
U.S.
Constitution is a legal means of
People's defense against attempts to
alter the American nation, replace
it, or dispose of it.
Comment4:
general welfare =
generalwell-being;economic
strength; the commitment to promote the
general welfare of the nation as a whole,
as opposed to protecting the
interests of a select group or class of
the population. In particular, in this
context general welfare has nothing to do with redistribution of
well-being among selected individuals.(And, of
course, it has nothing to do with
confiscation of wealth.)
The U.S. Supreme Court
"has often referred to it [Preamble, that
is] as evidence of the origin, scope, and
purpose
of the Constitution." See "PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF
THE PREAMBLE".
Preamble to the Bill of Rights
outlines the purpose
of the Bill of Rights:
"The
Conventions of a number of the States having
at the time of their adopting the
Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or
abuse of its powers, that further
declaratory and restrictive clauses should
be added: And as extending the ground of
public confidence in the Government, will best
insure the beneficent ends of its
institution"
Comment:
Thus the purpose of the Bill of Rights
has been to restrict government's powers and
not
to restrict any individual rights and liberty.
The Bill of Rights does notestablish collective or
group rights. It confirms
and protects
the rights of the most vulnerable minority:
the
individual.
"Democracy is ... two wolves and
a lamb voting on what are they going to
have for a dinner."
(The above is often used as an
example scenario to illustrate the concept
of tyranny of the majority.)
So, if in the society where
majorities decide everything it happens
that the majority does not respect
individual rights (and there is no good
reason that it does) then these individual
rights are likely to be violated and bare
democracy does not prevent that.
Please,
note that the speaker
uses the descriptor "Democracy"
(a system in which the term "We the
People" is understood collectively,
as a governing group that reconciles
inter-group disagreements by means
of the majority vote) in the narrow sense
of "Constitutional Republic"
(a system in which the term "We the
People" is understood individually,
as a consensual coalition of
individuals who possess certain
inalienable rights that the majority
vote cannot override, while
delegating certain restricted powers
to their government). These two are not
synonymous; in Democracy
understood in a general sense, the majority rule may be presumed the
over-riding criterion for the
validity of the election or
governing decision, while in the
Constitutional Republic, it is
merely one of the means to ensure
the accountability
of the government to We the People
and may be subject to restrictions
(for instance, those spelled out by
the "Congress shall not pass ..."
clause of the U.S. Constitution).
Moreover, democracy - on long run -
tends to favor those who multiply the
fastest, particularly if augmented with the
so-called "social justice" (the presumed right of the
poor to their proportional share in the
national wealth). If the whole world were
governed democratically, the nations like
India or China would easily outvote nations
like the U.S. Quoting "social justice"
considerations, they would very likely
"redistribute" the fruits of our hard work
and exceptional productivity among
themselves.
(Quote
from Encyclopædia Britannica: "The dictatorship of the
proletariat [a fundamental doctrine of
Marxism-socialism] originally was conceived by
Karl Marx (1818–83)
as a dictatorship by the majority
class.")
The US has been
established as a Constitutional
Republic and not as a bare
Democracy (click here for
an article on this subject), although it has incorporated some elements
of Democracy understood as the majority rule in clearly restricted
contexts. There is no reference to
noun Democracy or
adjective Democratic
in the U.S. Constitution, while
Article IV Section 4 contains the
phrase Republican Form of
Government. The
descriptors Democracy
and Democratic have
been attached, however informally,
to the law of the land later,
apparently in order to make a
false impression that in the U.S.,
the "democratic vote" and
"democratic election" (understood
as the majority rule)
are always valid and binding
exercises of the supreme political
power by the majority of
electorate, even if they go
against the Constitution and the
law.
Besides, even though the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government usually makes its decisions by means of the majority vote
of both Chambers, it embodies elements of representative democracy and not of direct democracy.
Should the U.S. Congress exercise its powers as a direct democracy, the
U.S. citizens would all be sitting in Congress and voting on all
legislation. A representative democracy is more practical. Direct
democracy clearly is a democracy. However, for a representative
democracy to be considered a democracy, the representatives
participating in voting must truly represent preferences of those who
elected them and not their own preferences. Whether the latter is
always the case is doubtful.
For similar reasons, the Executive Branch can hardly be considered
democratic. In addition to that, the U.S. President has not been
"democratically" elected (or otherwise a few most populous states would
always decide the outcomes of presidential elections), nor is he
supposed to be driven by the majority opinion while exercising his/her
executive powers. Moreover, except for the President, no other members
of the Executive Branch are elected by the voters.
The Judiciary Branch is clearly not democratic, as the federal judges are not elected and are supposed to follow the law and not the majority opinions in their judicial decisions.
Note: Electoral College is one of the
Constitutional direct means of prevention of tyranny of the majority.
Electoral
College prevents 'tyranny of majority' very
effectively (video)
"[...]
the presidential voting system protects
Americans from a "tyranny of the majority"
in which small groups of citizens could have
their rights abused by the majority."
The term "the people" means:
"a
class of persons who are part
of a national community or who have
otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of
that community"
Citation from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008):
"A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed."
means:
"Because a well-regulated armed
citizenry is necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed."
and not:
"A
well-regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of
the
Militia
to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."
"[t]he
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess
a firearm unconnected with service in a
militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as
self-defense within the home."
Since
promotion of the so-called "gun control" became one of the
trendy topics
in Computer Science (as well as Health
Sciences)
curricula,
issues related to Amendment II belong
to the core of a Computers and Society
course.
Note. The federal courts generally recognize that states do have a right to prohibit dangerous persons (due to their criminal-process convictions of felonies, mental disorder, mental illness, or addiction to narcotics) from acquisition and possession of firearms as long as due process was followed to establish, usually by a court order, that the person in question posed a danger to others.
Amendment IV: "The
right of the people to be
secure [...] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
[...]"
Amendment V: "No person shall [...]
be deprived of life, liberty [comment: be
imprisoned, that is], or property, without of
due process of law [...]"
[Comment.
The noun "person" cannot mean "a soldier of
invading army"; such an interpretation would
lead to absurd consequences that go against
the purpose of the Constitution. Thus
"person" does not mean "any human being". On
the other hand, replacing the noun "person"
with "people" would water down the
categoricity of Amendment V and make its
language awkward, even with
necessary grammatical and stylistic changes. All this
strongly suggests that the intended meaning of
"person" was the singular form of "the
people".]
See
this article that indicates some absurd
consequences of expanding the U.S.
Constitution beyond its purpose:
Not all societies adhere to that doctrine.
For instance,Soviet Union gained notoriety
for adopting the presumption of guilt in
criminal trials where the accused were
charged with political crimes. There,
expediency and imposition of socialism
were considered more important than
protecting the innocent people from
undeserved punishment. Here is
a quote from the head ofSoviet NKVD, Yezhov: "Better that ten innocent people
should suffer than one spy get away. When
you chop wood, chips fly."Also,
during the third phase (the Terror, 1793-94)
of the French Revolution, its infamous dictator and
outspoken advocate of collectivism, Robespierre, wrote this
instruction to the Revolutionary Tribunal: “People are
always telling judges to take care to save
the innocent; I tell them . . . to beware of
saving the guilty.”
Even in the
societies that have adopted the presumption
of innocence as the prevailing legal
doctrine in criminal justice, preferences
towards the presumption of guilt of
the accused may occasionally be
noticed in certain segments of the society
(sometimes trferred to as the "mob"). For
instance, the lynching of the
accused based on unproven accusations
against them and "trials" of women accused
of witchcraft found their infamous, even if
uncommonly so, place in the American past.
Unfortunately, this deviant trend (an accusation as a sufficient
reason for a punishment and thebenefit of
doubt granted to the accuser) still seems
to exist within the American society as we
learn on the regular basis form the news.
The unwillingness
to protect the innocent is
an indicator of a lack of empathy
and a typical
companion of hostile
intentions.
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people."
Comment: Amendment IX
confirms preservatory intent of the
Constitution. It acknowledges the fact
that at the time of its ratification, the People had
already had individual
liberties and rights that
the Bill of Rights was supposed to protect and preserve.
Amendment X: "The
powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."
Conclusions
Law that the federal government must
follow:
Everything that
that is not permitted [for the federal
government] is prohibited [to the federal
government].
Everything that
is not prohibited [for the people] is
permitted [to the people].
By virtue of Amendment X, the federal
government has only
the limited powers
specifically listed in the Constitution
(a.k.a. enumerated powers), and its
Amendments.
By virtue of Amendment IX,
the people have all the
rights listed in the Constitution and its
Amendments, and other rights retained by them.
The people generally do not need any
"authorization" to act.
The government does need an
authorization to act.
The
Constitution
does not give rights to the people;
it merely confirms some of people's
rights. The
people would have their rights even
without the Constitution. The
Constitution clearly outlines what the
Federal government can and cannot do.
Sources of
power of the Federal Government
The power of
sword
Article I
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States ...
[3] "To
regulate Commerce [...] among the several
States [...]
[8]
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful
Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right
to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Comment:
The main purpose of patents and copyrights
is to protect and sustain
the inventive processes that are already
in place rather than stimulate new
ones.
[15] "To [...] suppress Insurrections
and repel Invasions;[...]
[18]
"To make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in
the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
Comment:
The purpose of the above-quoted Clause 18, a.k.a the "necessary and proper clause", was to confine the legislative powers of the U.S. Congress to powers that had been delegated to it by the Constitution (which includes all the powers delegated to it by Amendments to the Constitution), and not to expand them - beyond the enumerated powers in the reminder of the Constitution - to all legislative powers that might turn our necessary and proper for anything that the U.S. Congress decided to do. However, there is a common misconception in this regard, based on the popular but un-Constitutional canard of the-so-called "flexible clause" that often interprets the Clause 18 as if it was written as:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper." [period]
while ignoring the remaining restrictive part:
"for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in
the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof."
Below is a short video that further elaborates on this issue.
Amendment XIV Section 1 [...] "No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. [...]"
Section 5 "The Congress shall have
power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions of this article."
[According to
writings by the drafters and other
contemporaries, the intended purpose
of XIV Amendment was two-fold. First,
to assure that former slaves, freed by XIII
Amendment (Dec. 6, 1865) became "citizens of
the U.S. and of the State wherein they
reside[d]". Second, to reaffirm the
Constitutional protection of the people's
right to life, liberty, and property at the
state level by means of due process of law
and equal protection of the laws, and to incorporate citizens' immunities and
privileges (in particular, those that were
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights) into state
laws.]
Example.
"McDonald v. Chicago, 561
U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark
decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States that found that the right of an
individual to "keep and bear arms," as
protected under the Second
Amendment, is incorporated
by
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment against the states."
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Comment: By virtue of Amendment X, no other branch
of the US Government has the executive power unless such power has been
expressly vested by the Constitution in the said other branch of the US
Government.
Section 3
... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ...
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States,
shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Comment: By virtue of Amendment X, no other branch
of the US Government has the judicial power unless such power has been expressly
vested by the Constitution in the said other branch of the US
Government.
Hence the separation of powers of the US Government.
Article VI
[...]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ...
Power of purse
Example: The federal government will not
appropriate highway funds to the states that
have not established the "federal" speed
limits (55 MPH, 65 MPH, or 75 MPH, for
different categories of highways).
Limitations
on
federal powers
Example: The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled a law passed by the
U.S. Congress (the Gun Free School Zones
Act of 1990) an unconstitutional abuse of the
"interstate commerce" clause.
The Supreme
Court wrote:
"To
uphold the Government's contention [...]
would require this Court to pile inference upon inference
in a manner that would bid fair to convert
congressional Commerce Clause authority to a
general police power of the sort held only
by the States."
California legislature and courts
allegedly follow a similar fallacy. Here
is a quote from a federal court order (Duncan v. Becerra, Case
No.: 3:17-cv-1017-BEN)
pertaining to a recent legal controversy
regarding "gun control" - arguably, a
means to gradually submit us to a
government that is not
bound by the Constitution and Bill of
Rights and is unaccountable
to "We the
People" :
“Constitutional
rights would become meaningless if states could
obliterate them by enactingincrementally
more burdensome restrictions while
arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each
restriction by itself
when determining constitutionality,”
The court disapproved of
such an incremental obliteration.
The following is a mandatory reading:
International law 'vs.' the American Constitution
A Constitutional expert scholar's
argument showing that, except for duly
ratified treaties, the
Constitution does not leave room for
applications of "international law" to
internal matters of the U.S.
The Biden administration is preparing to sign up the United States to a “legally binding” accord with the World Health Organization (WHO) that would give the Geneva-based United Nations health agency the authority to dictate America’s policies during a pandemic.
[...]
Written under the banner of “the world together equitably,” the zero draft grants the WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency. Once a health emergency is declared, all signatories, including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations.
[...]
A key question surrounding the accord is whether the Biden administration can bind the United States to treaties and agreements without Senate consent, which is required under the Constitution. The zero draft concedes that, per international law, treaties between countries must be ratified by national legislatures, thus respecting the right of their citizens to consent.
However, the draft also includes a clause that the accord will go into effect on a “provisional” basis as soon as it’s signed by delegates to the WHO and would, therefore, be legally binding on members without being ratified by legislatures.
[...]
The zero draft of the accord states that national sovereignty remains a priority, but within limits.
“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health,” the draft declares, “provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.”
[The author] Jonathan
Turley is the Shapiro professor of
public interest law at George
Washington University.
"The growing
dominance of the federal
government over the states has
obscured more fundamental changes
within the federal government
itself: It is not just bigger, it
is dangerously off kilter. [CA
government is even more so -
MS] Our carefully
constructed system of checks and balances
is being negated by the rise of
a fourth branch, an administrative state
of sprawling departments and
agencies that govern with
increasing autonomy and decreasing
transparency."
Comment
(MS): The members of
these departments and agencies
cannot
be voted out. Many of
them consider themselves
professional and competent
administrators who are
supposed to act independently
from the elected members of
the government to whom they
(directly or indirectly)
report, and to follow their
own judgment rather then
faithfully implementing the
policies set by the said
elected members of the
government. With a few
exceptions, the
leadership/management (the
so-called "hold-overs") of
these departments and agencies
are not promptly replaced as a
result of elections. Many
continue their tenures (and
governing) indefinitely,
regardless of these elections
results.
Some analysts, scholars, and
commentators add to this
category (4th branch) the
so-called "shadow
government" or "deep
state". I would
add to this
category (4th branch)over 2
millions of federal government
employees (the
non-elected public sector
employees of the Executive
Branch, excluding Postal
Service workers and active
duty military), the so-called
"permanent state"
or "permanent
government". (The total
number of government employees
in the U.S. at all levels is
over 20 millions,
almost twice as
much as the number of
employees in the manufacturing
sector.) They have a very real
direct impact
on the government's actions
and tend to be politically
oriented. Their labor unions
make the government officials
even more willing to listen to
these employees rather to
their (government officials')
constituencies. And they vote!
Even if there is a major
toss-up in the elected
branches of the government and
many elected officials are
voted out, the federal
employees will stay and
continue impacting the
government's actions as if
there were no elections. (This
is why they are called the
"permanent state".) All these
diminish the
accountability of
the elected officials to the
voters. The fourth branch is unaccountable
to We the People. Because
parts of it are unionized,
many of its
members are practically unremovable. (The
Judicial Branch is
unaccountable, either, so
now we have two out of four
branches that are
unaccountable, and the other
two are only partially
accountable.)
Subjugating the U.S. to "international law" has a similar
function: to submit
us to unaccountable
powers that we neither elected
nor authorized to govern us.
(Another
way towards that objective is to
allow foreign citizens vote
in American elections and
serve on American juries.)
Do you see a pattern
here? So much for the consent of
the governed! For how
can we have governments that
are "deriving their just
powers from the consent of the
governed" (quotation from the
Declaration
of Independence) if they
are unaccoutable
to us? Those
who are pushing us into that
situation are trying to move the clock back
before 1776 when the
Declaration of
Independence was
signed. And yet they call it "progress".
Did
anyone say: "Deception"?
"A group
of career politicians often referred
to as the “deep state” or the
“permanent government” is pushing an
agenda that goes against the
Constitution and U.S. law, while also
selectively leaking information to
manipulate public perception."
Regarding 2nd
Amendment
Compton
experiences spike in homicides, all
gang-related (2013)
"the cycle of
violent street gang involvement must be
broken, and access to firearms must
be limited."
Comment by MS:
So, according to this universalist "logic", the
law abiding Americans must be stripped of
their 2nd Amendment rights because of the
actions of career criminals and gangs. It
reminds me of Comrade Yezhov's infamous
statement "When you chop wood, chips fly". This
push is utterly absurd.
The idea of awarding individual rights to
many people was to have a larger population
willing to defend these rights. It was never
meant as an excuse to deprive all the people
of their rights because of their abuse by
criminals, according to the universalist
"logic": everybody or nobody. Does
anyone believe that disarming the
law-abiding will make the criminals to
denounce "gun violence", obey the
"gun-control" laws, and resort to less
deadly weapons, instead? Or that in times of
rising gang violence disarming the law
abiding will make us all safer? I don't.
"This means
that as of today, if you have an outstanding
warrant for a felony or certain prohibiting
misdemeanors you may be guilty of an
additional crime if you own or possess
firearms.
That’s right--even if
you are never charged or never convicted
of the underlying offense, even if you are not
even aware of the warrant’s existence you may be
criminally liable for otherwise lawful
possession of a firearm."
Comment
(MS): From the bill text: "This bill would prohibit a
person who has an outstanding warrant for
certain misdemeanors from owning, purchasing,
receiving, or possessing a firearm. A
violation of this prohibition would be a
crime, punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year or in the state
prison, by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by
both that imprisonment and fine." Did anyone say: "draconian"? Some believe
that the government and the party who have
declared themselves on the side of the people
can do no wrong. Those may be up for a rude
awakening. Watching what such a government
does to our 2nd Amendment right is indicative
of what it is likely to do to our other
rights.
Meanwhile ...
Unpublished CDC Study Confirms More than 2 Million Defensive Handgun Uses Annually
"An unpublished Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study confirms Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s findings of more than two million defensive handgun uses (DGUs) per year.
[...]
The study, which was never released to the public, shows approximately 2.46 million DGUs per year.''
Regarding 4th
Amendment ...
Aftermath of
Umpqua Community College, Oregon, shooting
The pictured above search
took place after the shooter was dead -
there were no other threats at that time.
Reportedly, students' cellphones were seized
at that time.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
Welcome
to an unenforced gun-free zone.
(It looks more like a rights-free zone.) While in it, your
Constitutional rights end right where the
"necessity" begins.
Here is a photo of the aftermath of
shooting at UCLA in June 2016:
Students
are being evacuated after the shooting at
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in
Parkland, FL. Do they look like well protected?
Notice a shadow of a sheriff deputy in the
uper right corner of this photo; he wears a
combat gear: a helmet, a bullet-proof vest,
and is well armed for his personal protection.
The kids do not have any of these. The fact
that they are marching with their hands up
indicates that the autorities did not think
the threat of more shooting was over. A good
example how the government is going to
protect you when you delegate to it your
right to self-defense.
The
students are treated more like suspects than
victims of the traumatic events who
barely escaped death. This may be seen as
government's fundamental inability to separate
the good from the bad along the universalistic
doctrine that the good ones and the
bad ones are all equal. Is this how
would you defend your own scared children?
Exclusive: Watch Uvalde school shooting video obtained by Statesman showing police response
Editor's note: The video footage, audio, and events described in this story about the Uvalde school shooting are disturbing. Discretion is advised. This exclusive story and video are being made available free of charge as a public service.
The gunman walks into Robb Elementary School unimpeded, moments after spraying bullets from his semi-automatic rifle outside the building and after desperate calls to 911 from inside and outside the Uvalde school.
He slows down to peek around a corner in the hallway and flips back his hair before proceeding toward classrooms 111 and 112.
Seconds later, a boy with neatly combed hair and glasses exits the bathroom to head back to his class. As he begins to turn the corner, he notices the gunman standing by the classroom door and then firing his first barrage.
The boy turns and runs back into the bathroom.
The gunman enters one of the classrooms. Children scream. The gunfire continues, stops, then starts again. Stops, then starts again. And again. And again.
It is almost three minutes before three officers arrive in the same hallway and rush toward the classrooms, crouching down. Then, a burst of gunfire. One officer grabs the back of his head. They quickly retreat to the end of the hallway, just below a school surveillance camera.
A 77-minute video recording captured from this vantage point, along with body camera footage from one of the responding officers, obtained by the American-Statesman and KVUE, shows in excruciating detail dozens of sworn officers, local, state and federal — heavily armed, clad in body armor, with helmets, some with protective shields — walking back and forth in the hallway, some leaving the camera frame and then reappearing, others training their weapons toward the classroom, talking, making cellphone calls, sending texts and looking at floor plans, but not entering or attempting to enter the classrooms.
The Statesman is publishing an edited version of the video to show how the law enforcement response unfolded.
At the same time, I (M.S.) am not
aware of any intentional shooting of a
person at a gun range where virtually
everybody is armed and engage in a target
shooting practice.
So, what is the actual purpose of
imposition of the "gun-free zones" on
campuses of American schools and
universities? Based on available data, these zones, unless enforced
with airport-type of security or similar
measures, do increase a risk of being shot
at. Therefore, such an imposition may
appear irrational.
Here is a hypothesis that provides a
logical explanation of the reason for such
an imposition:
To minimize
the chance that young
Americans in their formative age will
come in contact with firearms as
practical and potentially safe tools
for self-defense, hunting, and target
shooting.
This, in turn, is likely to desensitize
the public to the infringements of 2nd
Amendment rights and to facilitate
disarming of the American citizenry by
means of gun-control laws and similar
measures that go against Constitutional
guarantees of individual liberties.
It
appears that Americans are being
schooled as a future nation of
subjects.
It indicates a push towards reversing the
American experiment in individual
freedom.
Judge finds schools, sheriff's office had no
constitutional duty to protect Parkland
students
"A federal
judge has ruled that schools and sheriff's
officials in Broward County, Florida, had no
constitutional duty to protect students during
the Feb. 14 shooting massacre at Marjory
Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 dead
and wounded 17 others, reports the
Sun-Sentinel.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a
suit filed by 15 students against six
defendants, including the Broward school
district, the county sheriff's office and Scot
Peterson, the embattled deputy who failed to
confront gunman Nikolas Cruz as shots rang
out."
Comment (MS): Here is a question to all of
you who believe that there is no need for
law-abiding individuals in America to possess
firearms: If you
are disarmed then who has a duty to
protect you from a deadly assault by a
determined armed killer like the one
mentioned in the above article?
(Hint: It is your responsibility, but how are
you going to carry it on? With your bare
hands?)
Flashback (1956):
How
come these kids did not kill each other
then?
Of course, the fact that they were exposed to
firearms in a safe environment made them
unlikely to support in future any
"gun-control" measures and attempts to vilify
individually-owned firearms. Thus it does not
come as a surprise that we do not see
situations like the one on the picture above
happening anymore, as children are often
punished even for drawing a picture of a gun.
(Recall the explanation of imposition of "gun-free zones" on school
grounds.)
Shootings Are a Morality Problem, Not a Gun Problem
The 1902 Sears
mail-order catalog had 35 pages of firearm
advertisements. Other catalogs
and magazines from the 1940s, ’50s, and
’60s were full of gun advertisements
directed to both youngsters and parents.
[...]
Private
transfers of guns to juveniles were
unrestricted. Often a 12th or
14th birthday present, from a father to
his son, was a shiny new .22 caliber
rifle.
Today,
there is far less availability of
shotguns, rifles, and pistols than any
time in our history. That historical fact
should raise the question: Despite the
greater accessibility to guns in previous
decades,
why
wasn’t there the kind of violence we see
with today’s far more restricted access
to guns?
[...]
Calling for
more gun restrictions, gun-free zones, and
other measures have been for naught.
We must
own up to the fact that laws
and regulations alone cannot produce a
civilized society.
Morality is
society’s first line of defense against uncivilized
behavior.
[Comment (MS): Turning criminals into honest individuals is not the purpose of the law, as the evidence presented in slides for Chapter 1 strongly suggests.]
Moral
standards of conduct have been under
siege in our country for over a half a
century.
Moral
absolutes have been abandoned as guiding
principles.
We’ve
been taught not to be judgmental, that
one lifestyle or set of values is just
as good as another. We no longer hold
people accountable for their behavior
and we accept excuse-making.
Problems of
murder, mayhem, and other forms of anti-social behavior will
continue until we regain our moral
footing.
Comment (MS): I
would add to the above list of culprits
for the (signs of) increased violence in
the American society the misdirected "inclusiveness"
that is becoming an overriding value
imposed on us by part of our ruling
class. Such "inclusiveness" may lead to
misdirected "tolerance" of evil, which
apparently took place at Stoneman
Douglas High School in Parkland, FL,
under the pretext of breaking the
"school-to-prison pipeline".
"At the same
time the Broward County school system was
dismantling the “school-to-prison pipeline”
under policies that failed to stop accused
shooter Nikolas Cruz, it was building another
pipeline, funneling back into regular
classrooms thousands of other potentially
dangerous students released from local jails,
county and school district records reveal.
Through a little-known “re-engagement"
program for serious juvenile offenders, the
Florida district has “transitioned" back to
school almost 2,000 incarcerated students, a
number comparable to student bodies at many
high schools, according to district data
obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Local
probation officers warn that these offenders
have a high risk of reoffending.
Another initiative, the Behavior
Intervention Program, attempts
to mainstream
a smaller number of “students who exhibit
severe, unmanageable behavior,”
according to a 2017-2018 program handbook,
including those who are “convicted
of a serious crime such as rape, murder,
attempted murder, sexual battery or firearm
related [offense]." "
"Levine says he regularly fields complaints
from victims of Broward school crimes, and is
consulting with survivors of the Stoneman
Douglas shooting and their parents. He said
many of the incarcerated students being recycled back into schools
are members of local gangs responsible for a
recent rash of home invasions, burglaries,
armed robberies and car thefts
plaguing the county, which includes Fort
Lauderdale.
“They’re the reason these gangs control
some schools,” he said. “They get
out of juvi and go back into schools, where
they recruit younger kids and run drugs
through the schools." "
Victim's
father bawls out Chris Wallace
Jake Tapper grills sheriff over school shooting
response - YouTube
London's
Mayor Declares Intense New 'Knife Control' Policies To Stop Epidemic Of
Stabbings
An epidemic
of stabbings and acid attacks in London
has gotten so bad that London mayor Sadiq Khan
is announcing broad new "knife control"
policies designed to keep these
weapons of war out of the hands of Londoners
looking to cause others harm.
The "tough, immediate" measures involve an
incredible police crackdown, a ban on home
deliveries of knives and acid, and expanding
law enforcement stop-and-search powers so that
police may stop anyone they believe to be a
threat, or planning a knife or acid attack.
[...]
The mayor took to Twitter to announce his
new policies.
No
excuses: there is never a reason to carry a
knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and
they will feel the full force of the law.
[...]
London
has seen a dramatic uptick in murder rates,
surpassing even New York City in number of
homicides every month since the beginning of
2018. It has some of the strictest gun control laws in the
world, and, technically,
knives carried "without good reason" are off
limits to anyone under the age of 18.
MS-13
members accused of stabbing
16-year-old 100 times, setting body on fire
Maryland
police say five MS-13 gang members stabbed one
of their own 100 times and drove the body to
Virginia where they set it on fire.
Comment (MS): Yet some politicians
claim that once we dispose of our guns the
violence will just go away. Well, the news
contradict such claims. It seem clear that violent
individuals and groups, and not the guns
(particularly, the guns in hands of the
law-abiding citizenry) are the
root cause of violence. What the
so-called "gun-control" laws accomplish is
that the law-abiding become defenseless
while the criminals remain armed.
World Cup 2018
BLOODBATH: Russian hooligans
warn England fans ‘Prepare to DIE’
RUSSIAN
football hooligans have issued a dire
ultimatum ahead of the FIFA World Cup 2018,
pledging a “death sentence” against all
England fans if they dare head to the
tournament this summer.
Comment (MS): An snapshot of life in
unarmed but violent society.
Note that there is many trucks on CA
freeways in vicinity of Port of L.A.
(particularly, on freeways 110 and 710) that
produce thick smoke of their exhaust pipes
yet the CHP never stops them to investigate.
Despite the fact that Diesel engines' fumes
are carcinogenic and are believed to be
responsible for 80% of pollution-related
lung cancer in the South Bay area.
This inability of unwillingness to enforce
the clean air regulations on public roads -
even if it poses a potentially deadly hazard
- is a good predictor how "zealously" will
the government enforce the laws that are
supposed to protect the defenseless
individual in a disarmed society.
Here is what happened to gun-free and (mostly)
border-free Europe in years 1239 - 1242:
Part 3 (12 min.):
Part 4 (10 min.):
QUOTE:
Historians regard the Mongol
raids and invasions as some of the deadliest conflicts
in human history up through that
period. Brian Landers argues that, "One empire
in particular exceeded any that had gone
before, and crossed from Asia into Europe in
an orgy of violence
and destruction.
The Mongols brought terror to Europe on a
scale not seen again until the twentieth
century." Diana Lary contends that the Mongol
invasions induced population displacement
"on a scale never seen before,"
particularly in Central Asia and Eastern
Europe. She adds, "the impending arrival of the Mongol hordes
spread terror
and panic."
The man who turned a quaint, small town Christmas parade into a blood-soaked nightmare that left six dead and over 60 injured
is a career criminal who’s spent more than half of his life trapped in
a revolving door of incarceration, drug abuse and violence.
Darrell Brooks, 39, allegedly used a red Ford Escape to plow through revelers at an annual Christmas celebration in Waukesha, Wisconsin, on Sunday, but his life of crime started 22 years ago when he was just 17 years old.
How Milwaukee System Twice Set Free Waukesha Massacre Suspect
When Darrell Brooks allegedly rammed his SUV into the Waukesha Christmas parade—killing six people and injuring dozens—he had two violent felony cases open in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
In one open felony case, Brooks is accused of firing his handgun into a moving car. In the other, he’s accused of running over the mother of his child—with the same car he’s accused of using days later in the parade attack.
For both charges, Brooks was arrested, locked up, and then let go—first on $500 bail, then on $1,000 bail.
Waukesha Parade Attack Spotlights The Danger Of Left-Wing Prosecutors
Milwaukee
County District Attorney John Chisholm’s decision to push for an
"inappropriately low" bail allowed a convicted criminal accused of
additional felonies to walk free days before he allegedly deliberately
drove an SUV through a crowded parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
...
Chisholm has previously expressed disregard for the fatal impacts of sentencing decisions made under his progressive view of the justice system.
Chisholm’s approach to criminal justice emphasizes remediation through
social programs and addressing "racial disparities" in the prison
system over strict prosecution of crimes.
"Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into treatment program, who’s going to go out and kill somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It's guaranteed to happen. It does not invalidate the overall approach," Chisholm said in a 2007 interview.
Comment (M.S.): DA Chisholm shows
stereotypical - for some "progressive" officials - overriding commitment to ideology and a lack of empathy for
(prospective) victims of violent criminals that those officials are trying to
spare from punishment for crimes. On the other hand, he seems to have
quite a lot of empathy for the violent criminals that he wants to spare. Thus
he exhibits symptoms of of having an empathy switch that is one of the defining symptoms of psychopathy.
Regarding 5th and 14th Amendment
Private
property and taxes
Amendment V
[...]
nor be deprived of [...] property, without
due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
Amendment XIV
[...]
nor shall any State deprive any person of
[...] property, without due process of law;
Private Property Protection Act (passed
U.S. House of representatives, died in the
Judiciary Committee of U.S. Senate)
"This man [Coleman] owed $134
in property taxes. The District sold the lien
to an investor who foreclosed
on his $197,000 house and sold it. He and many
other homeowners like him were left with
nothing.
"Coleman,
struggling with dementia, was among those who
lost a home. His debt had snowballed to $4,999
— 37 times the original tax bill. Not only did
he lose his $197,000 house, but he also was
stripped of the equity because tax
lien purchasers are entitled to everything,
trumping even mortgage companies.
"[Coleman]
The
retired veteran bought his duplex in Northeast
Washington for $57,500 with life insurance money that
he received when his wife died of breast
cancer.
[Coleman] In 2006, he forgot to pay a $134 tax
bill, prompting the city to place a lien on
the home and add $183 in interest and
penalties. His son paid the $317 bill in 2009,
records show, but that wasn’t enough.
. . .
"One 65-year-old
flower shop owner lost his Northwest
Washington home of 40 years after a
company from Florida paid his back taxes —
$1,025 — and then took the house through
foreclosure while he was in hospice, dying of
cancer.
. . .
"A
95-year-old church choir leader lost her
family home to a Maryland investor over a tax debt
of $44.79 while she was struggling
with Alzheimer’s in a nursing home.
"Aside
from energy conservation, studies have found
that the time change interrupts sleep
cycles, causing fatigue, lack of
productivity and sadness. Other
studies show that the number of heart
attacks spikes in the days following the
March time change, and after the
November time change, the frequency of heart
attacks decreases.
There’s evidence showing energy
savings, too.
In 2007, daylight saving time was
extended by four weeks and the government
had another chance to compare national
energy use. The new report showed Americans
used about 0.5 percent
less energy per day during daylight saving
time."
Comment (MS): The fact that
Duke Energy, an electric utility company
that has a stake in an increased used of
electricity, was the publisher of the
article may suggest to take it with a grain
of salt.
However, the question:
Are the energy savings per
capita worth the disturbance of individual
biological rhythm that the change of time
causes?
is a valid and important one.
We would have saved even more
energy if we stopped using electric light
(say, by sitting in the dark at night) and
traveled by foot or by bike rather than by
car, but, or train. People 2,000 years ago
used miniscule amounts of energy. But do we
want to live like them? Would the decreased
quality of our lives be worth it?
If
the figure 0.5 percent saving in the article
is correct then an average person who spends
$100 a month on electricity would save ...
50 cents a month.
The expected value of the
energy savings would be about 20 percent
should the U.S. population stop growing
around 1970.
A propos future job market
...
Robots are
going to steal the jobs of chefs,
salespeople and models, researchers say as
they unveil full list of likely robot
professions
"[A]bout 35
per cent of jobs are likely to have been
taken on by robots in the next 20 years,
researchers have said.
"[T]hose that require repetitive
skills, the manipulation of data or manual
entering of information could see their jobs
taken away.
"The researchers calculated all of
the various advantages that humans have over
machines. Jobs that reward those traits were
more likely to be safe from being stolen
by robots.
"Those traits include creative
endeavours, such as writing,
entrepreneurship or scientific discovery.
People in those fields might actually
benefit from the robots — entrepreneurs can
use technology to “leverage your invention”,
the researchers point out.
"Social interactions are also still
highly-desired, and something robots aren’t
especially good at. Humans will still be
needed as managers and carers, for instance
— at least for the time being, though
scientists have been creating robots
designed to be friends to lonely people for
years.
Even some healthcare jobs
may be computerized ...
The hospital
computer that predicts if your time is up
"On October 1, 2017, night a
64-year-old psychopath, Stephen
Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada, through a broken
window of his hotel room on 32nd floor of the
Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino at the Las
Vegas Strip sprayed hundreds of bullets from
his machine gun(s) over on the unsuspecting
attendants of the Route 91 Harvest country
music open-air festival. The shootout lasted
for about 10 minutes and resulted in a
massacre in which 58 innocent
people killed and some 530 injured.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the injured
and the grieving families of the deceased."
"Reportedly, he had no criminal record and was
considered by many just a regular guy. An
oddity here and there, like being a loner and
a gambler, but these hardly added to a profile
of a mass murderer. Reportedly, he graduated from Cal State Northridge
with a degree in business administration in
1977. There were reports that at some point,
his net worth was in the order of 2 million
dollars."
"According to an article [1] in Chicago Tribune, his father,
Benjamin Paddock [...], was from his early
20's a
career criminal (a bank robber, among
other "specialties") who was elsewhere
characterized by FBI as a "dangerous
psychopath with suicidal tendencies."
He remained on the FBI Most
Wanted list for about 10 years after
he escaped prison in 1959. An article in the
Chicago Tribune from Jan. 8, 1946, reports
[...] that Ben Paddock, 25, had "confessed
stealing 12 automobiles in the last 18 months
and selling them for an average of $1,200
each." That was about seven years before
Steven, the Las Vegas mass murder was born.
Although we may never know how much, it at
all, of the criminal mentality did Steven
Paddock inherited from his father, one thing
that is safe to say is that should "rehabilitated"
Benjamin Paddock be sitting in jail in 1953
for his crimes, Steven would have never been
born, and the victims of his heinous crime
would have been still alive. If we only remembered to make crime a
definitelymaladaptive
behavior ... Benjamin managed
to have at least four children; compare it with
two kids or less in a typical family of
hard-working and productive professionals with
advanced degrees."
"This tragic event demonstrates, as many
similar tragic events in the past did, that
the notion that America is a "proposition nation", and that
it really does not matter who the Americans
are as long as they support the legal
foundations of our Republic, is nonsense that puts innocent
people's lives at risk and endangers our
Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. If,
indeed, we let wrong people to live with us,
prosper, and multiply, and some of these wrong Americans grossly
abuse their liberties in order to commit
violent crimes, then there will be
many politicians who are going to use the said
abuses as an excuse to limit or
nix our liberties, the categorical
provisions of Bill of Rights notwithstanding."
"The time-proven answer to
the atrocities committed by a few wrong
members of class the
people is to make the
criminal conduct a maladaptive behavior.
[...] It was a long evolutionary process that
has yielded the American society, the most
generous, ethical, and peaceful nation that I
have ever heard of. Those who call for
restricting our rights and freedoms,
with some of these calls being clearly
motivated by a desire to embrace and
accommodate the unethical, the violent, the
irresponsible, and the asocial, are exhibiting
a hostile attitude towards the idea of armed and free
society capable of driving its
sub-population of violent criminals to gradual
extinction.
Only time will show if the slaughtering of 58 innocent people
in Las Vegas by one of those wrong people will
be followed by a slaughtering of our Constitutional
liberties by our elected officials.
If that happens, we may kiss goodbye
the real accountability of your
government to us. "
Authorities
put brakes on information flow in Las Vegas
shooting
"Fifty-eight
people killed. More than 500 injured. And yet,
nearly a month after the Las Vegas Strip
experienced the worst mass shooting in modern
American history, local and federal
authorities are refusing to fill in the
blanks."
"Between 25
to 30 percent of crimes are committed by
psychopaths, despite them representing only 1
percent of the population. The percentages are
especially high for extremely violent crimes
such as rape and homicide. Given the detrimental effect
psychopaths have on society, is there a way
to cure them or at least to reduce their
negative impact on society?"
"However, in the last decade, evidence of an effective way to treat
psychopathy—a way that does not rely
on empathy (imagine how you would feel if
somebody did this to you) or punishment
(imagine what will happen when you do
this)—began to emerge. This new approach utilizes rewards."
"If the main idea behind this treatment
approach turns out to work, then then society
might face some complex questions about whether or not we should start to
reward psychopaths wherever we can."
Comment (MS): How about making psychopathology a maladaprive trait?
Paroled
gang member kills California officer
responding to traffic accident
"A gang
member who was recently freed from jailkilled his cousin and stole his
car Monday then shot and killed
a California police officer and wounded his
partner before being wounded himself,
authorities said.
"The suspect, a 26-year-old gang member, had a
history of serious crimes and had been
granted early release from Los Angeles
County jail about a week ago, Corina
said.
Comment (MS): Our government neglects its
basic duty to keep dangerous individuals off
the streets, and the people pay the price
for that negligence. According to LA Times,
"Police [...] described him as a Los Angeles
gang member who had been released on parole
within the last two weeks and had many
tattoos, including on his neck and face.
He was driving a stolen car from East L.A."
This kind of "inclusiveness"
creates a "necessity"
for "gun
control" advocated by
some of our elected officials at
the state and federal levels.
Because reintroducing violent
criminals into the free society
where guns are readily available
creates a grave safety risk that
is likely to lead to tragedies
like the one described above.
They say: "If one life was
saved, it [the gun control law] was worth
it."
Somehow, they do not apply the same logic of
"one life saved" to keeping dangerous
criminals in jails or out of the US.
As many times before, the government fails
and We the (law-abiding) People get
punished.
Suspect in Whittier
cop killing, East L.A. slaying was AB 109
probationer
A man suspected of
killing a Whittier police officer in a shootout
Monday, hours after slaying his cousin, was arrested
five times in the past seven months while
under supervision of county authorities as
part of a controversial program many law
enforcement agencies blame for an uptick in
crime, according to records and
authorities.
In 2010, Mejia was convicted of [armed - MS]
robbery and sentenced to four years in
prison, according to court records. His 2014
conviction [for car theft -
MS] came with a two-year prison sentence.
Since
being released last year, Mejia has been
arrested five times for probation violations,
Los Angeles County booking records show. His
most recent arrest was on Feb. 2.
In each case, no charges were filed and Mejia was held for
a period of nine or 10 days before being
released.
A probationer under AB 109 is sent to the
county’s supervision for non-violent,
non-serious and non-sexual offenses. Webb said AB 109
eligibility is based on the offense the person
is in jail for, not
their prior record, but
ultimately, a judge determines whether each
person qualifies.
Comment (MS).
According to this absurd
terminology, Al
Capone, who was in prison for
federal income tax evasion, would be
considered a "non-violent offender".
A gang member killed a cop nine days after he got out of jail. Did California’s justice reforms play a role?
"The death of Whittier
police officer is a terrible tragedy that
could have been avoided if the suspect had
been unable to acquire a firearm."
[Judge George Eskin
(Ret), Santa Barbara County Superior Court]
Comment
(MS): Yeah,
right. The "suspect" was a victim of "availability
of guns". Acquisition and possession of firearms by convicted felons is strictly prohibited in California. Also, those who have been adjudicated by a court of any state
to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental
illness are prohibited from acquisition and possession of firearms. (See CA Code WIC 8103.)
This absurd claim just shows
that it is pointless to
reason with an ideologue (which
the retired Judge Eskin appears to be).
Also, his claim ignores the fact that
criminals run a well-functioning
international network of illegal
manufacturing and distribution of
state-of-the-art firearms that the
authorities are unable to eliminate, as
a National Geographic video below
shows.
How about keeping violent criminals
incarcerated rather than letting them
out, early? When they serve their
sentences they are unable to "acquire
firearms", never mind using them to
hurt others.
These, and not some abstract "availability of guns", are the real root causes of
the tragedy.
Meanwhile, the explanation of this
tragedy is that part of California ruling class desires
to maintain the "natural"
level of saturation of the free
society with unethical individuals
- under the false pretense of
misdirected "inclusiveness" and "tolerance" (of evil) - who exhibit
law-breaking tendencies and other traits
of asocial behavior (for instance,
propensity to violence), and the ease
with which these unethical individual
avoid detection and scrutiny by the
society. (This in fact is an
instance of naturalistic fallacy on part of the ruling
class.) Such a desire creates a "necessity" to restrict individual
liberties (especially, "access
to firearms") of the law-abiding people
even though they didn't do anything to
deserve such restrictions. It is a clear
case of redistribution of guilt and
punishment, and seems to be
congruent with ideology of human
universalism.
So, our society begins to
exhibit a remarkable "tolerance"
of evil, while a rational action
would be getting
rid of evil. Meanwhile, since AB 109 was
passed, violent crime in LA County is
up more than 40 % and crime in Los
Angeles is up almost 70%. It's
probably due to firearm availability and
not to saturation of the area with
criminals. (Sarcasm)
It appears that our government that is
so eager to turn the law-abiding gun owners into felons
does not find enough resolve to keep the
proper felons where they belong (in
jails, that is). This selective
unwillingness/inability has all
appearances of gross incompetence.
Some local authorities are objecting state actions ...
District attorney to CA governor: ‘The blood of the children being shot by out-of-control gang members in our city is on your hands’
The District Attorney for Fresno County, California has strong words for democratic California Governor, Gavin Newsom, stating that he will have children’s blood on his hands from the mass release of inmates from the jails and prisons in the state.
[...]
Smittcamp’s press conference was held on the same day that officials in San Quentin was deciding whether or not to appeal the state’s decision to release over 1,000 convicted criminals back out onto the street. Smittcamp spoke about the decision by saying:
“The law enforcement agencies represented behind me
are the ones fighting on the front lines to bring peace to our
community. We are in some of the most violent times that we have ever seen ... In the midst of this, our last two governors vowed to close state prisons. Governor Newsom announced that he will close the state prison facility on Tracy, California, on September 30, 2021.
“Why is this relevant to why we are here today? It is relevant because we are lacking bed space to house local criminals who are shooting up our cities and killing our children and each other.
“His [Newsom’s] solution to COVID protection and prevention is letting them out of prison with no regard for their victims and the communities they will return to terrorize. So, I just said it: Governor: open up the prisons. Do you job. Manage.”
[Addendum (MS): Reportedly, Smittcamp also said: "No one states the obvious: that Gov. Newsom ignores the drug-addicted people laying in the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles and all the other cities in California like Fresno while paying attention to how to best protect the inmates from prison and not the cities from crime."]
Fresno homicides and shootings are growing. Here’s what law enforcement is doing about it
A rise in violent crime in Fresno was addressed by local and federal law enforcement leaders during a news conference Wednesday afternoon.
There have been 50 homicides and 564 shootings in the city this year, as of Monday, Fresno police said.
Fresno Police Chief Andrew Hall said shootings in the city have doubled from what they were at this time last year.
[...]
Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp described it as “some of the most violent times that we have ever seen.”
Seven speakers shared brief updates about arrests and investigations, with several also blaming state leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom for policies they said contributed to the rise in violent crime.
[...]
U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott of the Eastern District of California said violent crime in California is growing at a “record pace.”
“At an ever-increasing level people are being shot, and people are dying,” he said, “including children and babies in this state right now.”
Property crime, when not punished, is adaptive.
Here is a highly recommended video "Why Shoplifting is Getting out of Control in California".
It illustrates the fact that if the society does not turn property crime, which - if not punished - tends to be a definitely adaptive behavior, onto the maladaptive then the population segment of those who engage in this kind of activities will likely grow and the property crime will likely increase.
LASD said deputies "couldn't intervene with the giant takeover groups for safety concerns" and because they were "outnumbered."
COMPTON, Calif.
(KABC) -- Sheriff's deputies in Compton are returning to their patrol
duties Monday following a chaotic weekend that involved a series of street takeovers and a mob of looters leaving a trail of destruction at local stores.
Video captured a wild scene at an Arco gas station near Alondra Boulevard and Central Avenue early Sunday morning where a large group was caught on video bum-rushing an Arco gas station and stealing thousands of dollars' worth of merchandise, all while the clerk on duty hid inside.
Deputies with LASD's Compton station had been responding to several illegal street takeovers earlier in the night, LASD said.
Investigators said the two largest takeovers took
place at the intersections of Long Beach Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue
and near the gas station looting incident.
[...]
Though Compton station deputies had been responding to various incidents through the night, LASD said they are "currently limited with their staffed personnel" and "couldn't intervene with the giant takeover groups for safety concerns" and because they were "outnumbered."
One person was detained, but no arrests have been made.
[Comment (MS):
This happened in Compton, CA, across the 91 Fwy from our campus. Under these circumstances, when law enforcement is unable to stop crime
in progress, calls to disarm the law-abiding Californians are not only
utterly absurd but also are dangerous. Because if the law enforcement
fails to enforce the law, who will protect the disarmed victims?]
Court orders California to cut San Quentin inmates by half
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California appeals court has ordered state
corrections officials to cut the population of one of the world's most
famous prisons to less than half of its designed capacity, citing
officials' “deliberate indifference” to the plight of inmates during the coronavirus pandemic.
State prison officials said Wednesday that they are deciding whether to appeal the order, which otherwise will force them to parole or transfer about 1,100 inmates serving time in San Quentin State Prison north of San Francisco.
Meanwhile, illegal distribution of firearms by criminals continues ...
Here is
a highly recommended
National Geographic video
"Ghost Guns" that documents how
high quality untraceable guns are being manufactured
overseas and sold to criminals
as needed in the US and CA by
criminal organizations. The
authorities are unable to stop
that common and profitable illegal
trade. What the authorities are
doing, instead, is making it
more and more difficult for
the law-abiding citizens to
legally acquire firearms.
This absurd policy
converges to a situation where the
only individuals privately
possessing (and carrying) guns are
the criminals and the privileged
few.
Notice what one
of the criminals said at the beginning of the
above video : the (illegal)
guns give him women, money, and "respect".
So his lifestyle, if he gets away with his
wrongdoing, is extremely adaptive. If the
society does not turn it into the maladaptive,
his and his fellows' progeny is likely to
became the majority within a few generations.
This explains why some countries have such a high homicide rates.
Crime, when not punished, is adaptive. Here is a recent
illustration of that fact.
"Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin
Guzman “El Chapo” Loera may be going
on trial tomorrow in Brooklyn federal court,
but the billion dollar cartel he founded is
still flourishing under the direction of his two favorite sons."
Guzman, who is believed to be 61 years old,
has 15 children,
according to published reports.
“At least 15 kids,” said
the federal source. “There may be more.”
Series of
Errors Allowed Shooting Suspect, in U.S.
Illegally, to Remain
"KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A Mexican man who stands
accused of murdering five people and was
captured Wednesday was in the country illegally
and should have been jailed or deported last
year, federal immigration officials said, but
three times in less than a year, he was arrested
and allowed to go free because of procedural
errors."Pablo A. Serrano-Vitorino, 40, who was
caught after a manhunt across two states, had a
felony conviction on his record, had been
deported once before and had returned to the
United States illegally.
ICE: 124
illegal immigrants released from jail later
charged in 138 murder cases
The pastor of
a New York state church has declared that his
church is 'NOT a gun free zone.'
In the wake of November 5's deadly church
shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the
Lighthouse Mexico Church of God in Oswego
County, New York is inviting its congregants
to bring their firearms to church services as
a protective measure.
[...]
Outside the Lighthouse Mexico Church of
God, a sign now reads, 'We say it again, we
are not a gun free zone' and the church's
website prominently displays a scrolling
message reiterating the message and also
stating 'we protect our people!'
Identity theft
is not a "victimless crime"
How
Identity Theft Sticks You With Hospital
Bills
Thieves use stolen personal data to get
treatment, drugs, medical equipment
"In a
twist on identity theft, crooks are using personal data
stolen from millions of
Americans to get health care,
prescriptions and medical equipment.
"Victims sometimes only find
out when they get a bill or a call from a
debt collector. They can wind up with the
thief’s health data folded into their own
medical charts. A patient’s record may
show she has diabetes when she doesn’t,
say, or list a blood type that isn’t
hers—errors that can lead to dangerous
diagnoses or treatments.
"Adding insult to injury, a victim often can’t fully
examine his own records because the
thief’s health data, now folded
into his, are protected by
medical-privacy laws.
And hospitals sometimes continue to hound
victims for payments they didn’t incur.
"And the medical establishment
often doesn't make it easy to clean up the
mess, as Mrs. Meiners found out.
"She [the mother of a victim
of identity theft] says Centerpoint told
her that medical-privacy laws prevent her
from looking at everything in her son’s
medical record because it contained the
thief’s health information. Federal medical-privacy laws
bar a person’s access to someone else’s
data, even if the information is in
their own files, medical experts
say.
"Thieves use many ways to
acquire numbers for Social Security,
private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
Some are stolen in data breaches and sold
on the black market. Such data are
especially valuable, sometimes selling for
about $50 compared with $6 or $7 for a
credit-card number, law-enforcement
officials estimate. A big reason is that
medical-identification information can’t
be quickly canceled like credit cards.
"An undocumented immigrant,
Amira Avendano-Hernandez, of Clinton,
Wis., was sentenced in 2013 in U.S.
District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin to six months in prison and
restitution of more than $200,000 after
she got medical treatment, including a
liver transplant, using someone else’s
name. She had bought a stolen Social
Security number from a third party,
according to the U.S. attorney’s office
for the district. Her lawyer declines to
comment.
"Once identity information is
stolen, thieves can get all sorts of
health care. In 2009, Jose Amid Juarbe
pleaded guilty in Lehigh County, Pa.,
court to identity theft to get penis
enlargements for himself and a friend,
according to police and court records. Mr.
Juarbe declines to comment.
"A retired Florida woman whose
insurance information was swiped got a
hospital bill for an amputated foot, even
though she still had both feet, according
to a report on medical-fraud cases by the
Center for Democracy and Technology.
"Unlike in financial identity
theft, health identity-theft
victims can remain on the hook for
payment [...]"
"It is often up to consumers to
prove they were victims and to
pursue legal remedies to erase bogus
charges and debts, according to
identity-theft experts.
5
Things: Medical Identity Theft and How
to Avoid It
"The fast-growing crime of medical
identity theft is being fueled by the
proliferation of electronic medical
records and a sharp increase in data
breaches at insurers and health care
providers. Crooks obtain or steal millions
of Americans’ personal data, including
insurance information and Social Security
numbers, and use it to get emergency care,
surgery, prescriptions and medical
equipment, The Wall Street Journal
reports. They also seek to profit by
billing Medicare, Medicaid and insurers
using someone else’s identity.
"Unlike in financial ID theft, victims can
be required to cover costs for health
services they never received. Sometimes
the health plan or health-care provider
absorbs the losses, and sometimes they
push the consumer to pay. A survey by the
Ponemon Institute found 65% of victims reported they
spent an average of $13,500 to
restore their credit, pay their
health-care provider and correct
inaccuracies in their health records.
"A new
study from Wealth-X and UBS finds that
the global population of billionaires
has surged past 2,000. Their combined
wealth totals $6.5 trillion—more than
the combined gross domestic product of
France and Germany.
Is the above
a result of transition of power (the last
three decades of 1900's) from the old ruling
class to the new one? A 1996 article in the New
York Times may provides some clues in this
regard.
The Economist,
March 12, 2015
(Note: "In March 2013, the total cost of
the Iraq War [2003-2011, most of the time it was
a peace-keeping and nation-building
mission (MS)] was estimated to have
been $1.7 trillion [or about 1.4 % of accumulated GDP
in 2003-2011 (MS)] by the Watson
Institute of International Studies at Brown
University."
"The U.S.
war in Iraq [and
in Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan 2001-2016 (MS)]
has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490
billion in benefits owed to war veterans,
expenses that could grow to more than $6
trillion over the next four decades counting
interest, a study released on Thursday said."
There is a striking coincidence between three
of the above curves. In particular, it appears
that high immigration (recently, mostly "cheap
labor") is driven by the interest of top 1% of
earners.
The
above trends also coincide with redistributive taxation, as it has been visualized on
the graph below:
"Newly
released Census data reveals nearly 110 million
Americans – more than one-third of
the country – are receiving government assistance
of some kind."
"An
estimated 45.3% of American households —
roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal
individual income tax, according to
data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy
Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based
research group."
Millionaire wealth in Asia may top North America by
2014
"The total
wealth of high net-worth individuals in [Asia]
– defined as those with investable assets of
$1 million and above – is expected to rise to
$15.9
trillion by 2015, compared with $12
trillion in 2012. Wealth of the equivalent group of
individuals in North America stood at $12.7
trillion last year."
The Economist, March 12, 2015
Cost of education and
return of investment
Computer
science major ranks No. 8 for salary
potential
There are only 5 public universities ranked
among 25 best: UC Berkeley
(#15), UCLA (#15),
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor (#21), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (#22), and University of Virginia (#24).
K-12
education in the US is mostly public. And here
is "the proof of the pudding":
A
lack of education and problem-solving skills
in the age of digital technology ...
"In math,
reading and problem-solving
using technology – all skills considered critical for global competitiveness
and economic strength – American adults scored
below the international average on a global
test, according to results released Tuesday.
"As the
American economy sputters along and many
people live paycheck-to-paycheck, economists
say a highly-skilled workforce is key
to economic recovery.
"Education
Secretary Arne Duncan said in a statement the
nation needs to find ways to reach more adults
to upgrade their skills. Otherwise, he said, “no matter how hard they work, these
adults will be stuck, unable to support
their families and contribute fully
to our country.”
"America’s school kids have
historically [since 1970s] scored low
on international assessment tests compared to
other countries, which is often blamed on the
diversity of the population and the high
number of immigrants.
"This test
could suggest students leaving high
school without certain basic skills aren’t
obtaining them later on the job or in
an education program.
"Dolores
Perin, professor of psychology and education
at Teachers College, Columbia University, said
the report provides a “good basis for an
argument there should be more
resources to support adults with low
literacy.”
... and
the unemployment that it causes.
Where the
talent is? Fortune,
September 19, 2014, pp 98 an on ...
Comment by
M.S. Low-skilled workers
have a statistical tendency to have more kids
than the highly skilled (college-educated)
workers, and for a number of good reasons.
This tendency, first noted during Industrial
Revolution in England in 1800s, has a
detrimental impact on average productivity
while driving up the demand on public
assistance. As a result, it impedes the
economic progress and amplifies negative
effects of economic crises.
Here
is California's solution ...
Gov. Jerry Brown
signs measure suspending high school exit exam
California's statewide
high school exit exam, normally a
requirement for students to receive their
diplomas, will be suspended for three years
under a new law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown
on Wednesday.
The delay will
give education officials time to prepare a
new exam aligned with the Common Core
standards.
The measure, SB
172 by Sen. Carol Liu (D-La Canada
Flintridge), will also allow about 32,000
students who did not pass the exam dating
back to 2004 to receive diplomas as long
as they completed all other graduation
requirements.
State
education officials canceled the exit exam
for high school seniors this year,
prompting legislators to pass emergency
legislation enabling about 5,000 students
to get their diplomas without the required
test.
... as reading and math scores are plunging ...
Why Are Student Test Scores Plunging? Look at Politicized Education
Recent national student test scores showed a massive decline in learning in reading and math. This achievement implosion has several explanations – one is the increasing politicization of classroom instruction, which is reducing rigor and diverting attention from improving students’ foundational knowledge and skills.
[...]
Many students report that increasing ideological indoctrination in the classroom is leading to weaker standards and lower expectations.
[...]
The politicization of classroom instruction leads not only to indoctrination but also, as the California student noted, to lower student achievement. “It’s not a school’s place to impose on the students any viewpoint,” he observes. “What we need to do is really encourage achievement for all people.”
"Every Wi-Fi
connection is potentially vulnerable
to an unprecedented security flaw that allows
hackers to snoop on internet traffic,
researchers have revealed.
The vulnerability is the first to be found
in the modern encryption techniques that have
been used to secure Wi-Fi networks for the
last 14 years.
In theory, it allows an attacker within range
of a Wi-Fi network to inject computer
viruses into internet networks, and read
communications like passwords, credit card
numbers and photos sent over the internet."
A propos the U.S.
Constitution and (allegedly outdated) Bill of
Rights ...
Common Core
assignment: Remove two amendments from 'outdated' Bill of Rights
"[A]
sixth-grade [student] was given a team
assignment to revise the Bill of Rights,
pruning two amendments from the
Constitution while adding two others
[...]."
"The assignment
made the assumption that the United States
government has determined that the Bill of
Rights 'is outdated and may not remain in
its current form any longer'."
Comment (M.S.) There is a
Constitution-prescribed process to amend it.
"The
government" is bound to obey the
Constitution and its Amendments and not to
declare them "outdated" or unfit to "remain in its current form any longer."
I hope we
are not evolving, as a nation, towards a
political system in which our liberties will
be classified (by our government) as falling
into one of the following three categories:
collective rights
the outdated, and
loopholes.
'Outdated' First Amendment should be rewritten,
majority say
"A poll shows
that a majority of Americans think the First
Amendment is outdated and should be
revised.
The Campaign for Free Speech survey found
that 51% of Americans say the First Amendment
should be rewritten and 48% say that “hate
speech” should be illegal.
The percentages are even higher among
millennials — 57% say the First Amendment
should be rewritten to “reflect the cultural
norms of today,” and 54% say an appropriate
punishment for “hate speech” could be jail
time."
Comment (M.S.):
How unsurprising. The teachers teach that
the First Amendment is outdated and - guess
what - the students think the First
Amendment is outdated, too.
Opposition to
Common Core spurs jump in homeschooling
"The
home-schooling boom is getting a new push due
to opposition to Common Core, the controversial national education standard that some
parents claim is using
their children’s public school lessons to
push a political agenda, according to
critics of the Washington-backed curriculum."
Below is a video that illustrates how children are
used in order to advance political
agenda. Lowering voting age down to
seven, anyone? Apparently, there is not enough
mature Americans who uncritically subscribe to
the Left's agenda.
Sen. Feinstein
Gets Confrontational With Children Asking Her
to Support Green New Deal
The
majority of the children seem to agree
that the U.S. is on the wrong track and
has to be transformed onto something
"better". (But somehow, when it comes to
"climate", they appear so conservative.)
Using children in political power
struggles is one of known ways how socialism
may be imposed one day on this free
country, America.
Below is a short video showing teens dumping out milk in a grocery store in the UK in order to "raise awareness about dairy production emissions" and contributions of those emissions to "global warming" (a.k.a. the "climate change). One more illustration of the observation that students (often) do what teachers teach. How come mature adults do not engage in acts of this sort? Could it be that those mature adults are wiser and more resistant to indoctrination than those teens? One more example of ethically questionable (to say the least) but quite common tactics of using children and teens for political gains.
Below
is a video that illustrates how children
were used by Hitler for his political
agenda. It was reprehensible and
despicable, I hope you can agree.
Barbaric acts in the most
civilized country ...
Oklahoma City
beheading: Will jihad-style attack boost
'bring gun to work' laws? (+video)
The
Vaughan Foods officer who used his gun to
stop a beheading attack by a fired employee
is protected by a controversial law
affirming the right to bring firearms to
work. Twenty-two states have followed
Oklahoma’s lead.
“Americans should be ready to face these fanatics,”
John Snyder, a gun law expert and lobbyist,
says in a press release on Saturday. “As the
Oklahoma [attack] indicates, people
can stop terror attacks with firearms.
Americans need their guns to defend
life and freedom.”
Moore
Police Sgt. Jeremy Lewis told the Associated
Press that Vaughan’s decision
to carry a weapon to work made a big
difference in the outcome of the attack.
The situation “could have gotten a lot
worse” if Vaughan didn’t have this gun, said
Sgt. Lewis. "This was not going to stop if
[Vaughan] didn't stop it."
A 2005
North Carolina-based study in the American
Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns are allowed
are about five times more likely to have a
worker die on the job from a gunshot wound
than places that don’t allow guns at work.
Comment by
M.S. Yeah, right.
Bringing a gun home makes it more
likely to have a murder there, just like
bringing insulin home makes it more likely
to have a diabetic in the family. (Fact: The households that stash insulin are
much more likely to have a diabetic than the
households that do not.)
Woman
beheaded in Oklahoma attack was grandmother
who just lost her home in tornado as it
emerges attacker was let out of jail early
Today it
was revealed that Nolen had
served less than two years of a six-year
prison sentence for possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute, reports
News OK.
According to records he went to prison March 10, 2011,
to start a two-year sentence for marijuana
possession and another two-year
sentence for assaulting a highway patrol
trooper, the website reported.
Oklahoma
Beheading: Prosecutors Say Suspect Alton
Nolen Should Have Been In Jail Longer
Prosecutors say the suspect who allegedly beheaded a
co-worker at a Moore, Oklahoma, food
processing plant should have been in prison
longer. Alton Alexander Nolen, 30, had
served just two years of a six-year drug
sentence.
Oklahoma
County District Attorney David Prater told
the Oklahoman prosecutors "have no idea" how
long someone will serve once convicted
unless the individual is convicted of a
violent crime.
"This case
perfectly illustrates the problem with the
Department of Corrections," Prater
said.
It was not the first
barbaric act in Oklahoma ...
Cartel
violence is here: Teen tortured, beheaded in
Oklahoma…press silent
On
October 13, Saunders’ remains were
discovered inside a duffel bag behind the
Homeland grocery store at NW 23 and Rockwell
Avenue. She had been beheaded and
could only be identified through dental
records.
Massey
also told and investigators that Saunders
was killed simply to send a message
of to the kidnapped woman as well as other
women to comply with those running the
prostitution ring.
Comments by M.S. The above events
provide an instructive case study of
the current trends to delegate
Constitutionally-protected
individual rights (in this case, the
right to self-defense with a deadly
force) to the government.
If the killer
used gun rather than butcher knife,
there would be calls for more gun
restrictions. The media did not call
it "butcher-knife violence", although they use the term "gun violence"
when the killer uses a firearm. Most
of media downplayed the fact that the killer was shoot by an armed
citizen which stopped the killer
from beheading the second woman.
Media downplayed killer's
criminal convictions by
characterizing them as "non-violent"
(although he had conviction for
attacking a police officer).
The killer
was let on parole after serving 2 out of 6
years prison term.
Conclusions:
1.
Watch for media bias and their systemic push to disarm the law abiding
citizenry. A typical trick
in this context involves shifting of the burden
of proof. Rather than
presenting a proof that 2nd
Amendment needs to be repealed and
the law-abiding citizens to be
disarmed, the "gun control" lobby
now demands that these citizens
prove that "gun control" is
detrimental to the security,
liberty, and welfare of the American
society, or else they stop resisting
lobby's attempts to disarm them. For
the "gun control" lobby, people's
Constitutionally protected liberties
look more like "loopholes"
than rights.
"They
should not tell everything they’re
going to do. If you're going to take
people’s guns away, wait until
you get elected -- then take the
guns away," she said.
"Don’t tell them ahead of time."
2. Calls to disarm the law abiding
while the world is a dangerous place to live
are absurd. There were
no world wars since 1945 not because
people in general became less
aggressive and more friendly but
because of the deterrence of
existing nuclear arsenals. The
desire to prey, invade, and
parasitize still remains strong
among some groups and nations,
although some of those are seeing
alternative (non war-like) ways to
satisfy it. Under these
circumstances, the calls from
government officials to disarm the
law abiding are expressions of hostility towards
the free and armed citizenry.
3. The main functions of the
penitentiary are:
to protect future victim of
the criminals,
to deter lawbreaking, and
to turn crime
into a maladaptive
activity.
It is not the function of
penitentiary
to make honest
citizens out of criminals, or
to protect/spare
the criminals from the consequences of
their wrongdoing.
In a country based on individual
liberty, "corrections (of
criminal behavior)" is an alien,
unproven, and risky idea
that is likely to inflict more
damage to the American society than
it does good to it. The above is
particularly applicable to the
so-called "white-collar" criminal
behavior that is unlikely to be
"corrected" by punishment
(although stern punishment will
almost certainly deter it).
"Albert
Jay Nock, author, aesthete, and social
critic, was an advocate of liberty in a
collectivist age."
... and how computers
are related to it.
Computers and the information
technology that is based on them,
make the economic means
more viable by boosting inventiveness,
productivity, and cognition. But they also
provide a powerful tool of imposition of political means. "Ancient
regimes" that fell due to their inability to
surveil and control their subjects might as well have
survived and strengthened their
grasp on absolute power if given
the capabilities of today's computer
systems.
An
emerging political trend (and the ideology thereof)
that benefits from the advances of cutting-edge
information technology is collectivism,
utilitarianism is a form of which. This, in addition to being a
threat to our individual freedom,
is a paradox: unrestricted
individualism produced the digital
marvels that triggered the Information
Revolution, which in turn led to
re-emergence and strengthening of
collectivism that aims - by means of information control
- at curtailing of
individualism and liberties that are
associated with it, which control and
curtailing will stop the rapid progress
in computer and information
technologies, and, eventually, bring the
Information Revolution to an end. Thus collectivism
parasitizes on individualism and as such,
it exhibits a tendency characteristic of
atavism.
The history
apparently repeats itself, the similar
paradox took place during the
Industrial Revolution in 1800s; for
instance, Marxism, that derailed
industrial progress, was born as a
result of an unprecedented industrial
progress. Lenin spelled it out
clearly in his plan to spread socialism
all over the world when he said (the
following is loose translation from
Russian): "The capitalists will sell us
the rope with which we will hang them
all." It was an open expression
of intent of Marxists to
parasitize on capitalism. That
schema did not last for very long
because the parasites killed the host
(and intentionally so).
Paraphrasing Lenin, collectivists may say: "Individualists will develop
for us information technology with
which we will control them all."
A memorable quote:
"We know that no one ever seizes power
with the intention of relinquishing
it."
"I
was born free into this world
with my own responsibilities and
freedom to act as I basically like[d].
I came into this world in an epoch
when Western governments were [...]
servants of the[ir] nations, although
they were already then being [...]
undermined by [...] collectivist forces [...]."
Please, believe me, there is no substitute for
individual freedom.
If one wishes to remain free
and avoid becoming political
(like I wish; as a
matter of fact, I try to be as
anti-political as I can),
if one disapproves of "political means" of
fulfilling the needs and the desires and
would like to take advantage of the
"economic means," instead (like I do), one
has to study and discuss the politics and
the ideology. Which does not make one automatically "political"
or "ideological". For
otherwise how can one resist being pushed
into the social system where virtually
everything is politically driven?
Utilitarianism (this is NOT
an endorsement!; judge
for yourself):
Utilitarianists want to
build an amoral utilitarian
society but selfishness (their typical charge against capitalism)
is not allowed. Oddly enough, when
that ostensibly so perfect system
(an amoral society, that is) fails
to deliver on its promises, its
designers and engineers blame the
failure on ... the people not being
good enough to take the advantage of
it.
Recall
the quote
from T.S.
Eliot that
hints why utilitarianism
must fail; it aims -
among other things - at
a construction of amoral
(morality-free) society
that is about as
unsustainable as the Flat-Earth
Theory is.
Comments on
utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
(socialism is a
form of which) subordinates
individual rights to group's interest. It
allows forced transfer (pre-emption
and redistribution) of individual
property in order to maximize total
utility. (Ostensibly, wealth
is better utilized if evenly
distributed.) In return,
utilitarianism promises universal
happiness. In its extreme, it
imposes the tyranny of utility.
(A
picture from The Economist,
March 12, 2015. It shows a
death-row prisoner in Socialist
China who is about to be
executed and his body parts to
be donated to hospitals. On his
right there is a surgeon who is
on a call from a hospital in
order to time the execution with
organ demand. Arguably, these
body parts will be better utilized
by the patients waiting for
transplants then by the
condemned prisoner. Here is a
recent article on that issue: Tribunal
Investigates Allegations of Forced Organ
Harvesting in China
https://www.theepochtimes.com/tribunal-investigates-allegations
The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to Nordic countries
limiting the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine last week, saying the shot’s benefits outweigh the risks.
Health
officials in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Iceland suspended the use of
the Moderna vaccine for younger people due to a risk of side effects
including myocarditis.
Sweden
said it would pause the vaccine for people under the age of 30, and
Denmark did the same for those under 18. Finland said that males under
the age 30 shouldn’t receive the jab, while Icelandic officials added
over the weekend that they would suspend use of the shot.
“The
FDA is aware of these data. At this time, FDA continues to find that
the known and potential benefits of vaccination outweigh the known and
potential risks for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine,” an FDA official said
in a statement to news outlets over the weekend in response to the
Nordic nations’ decision to suspend the vaccine for certain age groups.
Reader's comment:
Shouldn’t
the individuals and not governmental agencies (like FDA) decide if the
benefits that vaccine offers to them outweigh the risks of (potentially
fatal) complications that they may suffer from?
Comment (MS): Here, FDA appears to see the "vaccine mandate" from purely utilitarian
perspective. As if they (FDA officials) were saying that they know
better than the individuals what is the best for the individuals. So,
they appear to support an enforcement of the "vaccine mandate", if not
with the power of sword then with the power of purse.
(For instance, some individuals who disobey the "vaccine mandate" may
lose their source of income, or be denied certain medical services. Click here for an example of such denial
.)
Although
intellectual foundations ofutilitarianism (and socialism)
disguise themselves as
philosophies, which they may have
some elements of, they - in fact -
are ideologies (ideologies
of wealth preemption and
redistribution, to be more exact).
The difference between philosophy
and ideology
is substantial.
Philosophy
attempts to explain the
world and uses cognition
for that purpose while ideology attempts to change
the world (usually, the society
and the human nature, usually, in
order to assert and maintain
political and economic power) and
often advocates suppressingcognition (by means of propaganda,
censorship,
intimidation, obfuscation,
fallacious reasoning,falsification,
etc.) for that
purpose. Because of that suppression,
ideology
constitutes a pseudophilosophy
(a set of claims and postulates based
on pseudosicientific
or non-scientific premises) rather
than philosophy. Thus ideology
falls into the category of
intellectual corruption
(allegedly, for a "good cause"
that provides an excuse for the
said corruption).
A fusion of
philosophy and ideology
is possible. For instance, postmodernism
(a pseudoscientific
theory) purports to be a
philosophy while, in fact,
incorporating elements of ideology.
Under the pretext of "scientific
skepticism" (the latter
being an accepted method of
verification of truth), postmodernism
does suppress cognition
by summarily rejecting such
classical concepts of modern science
as truth and reason (see
a note on relativism) in favor
of ideologically motivated
doctrines that are unsupported by
evidence or rational inferences.
Such a rejection allows
postmodernists to hide incompatibility
of postmoderninsmwith scientifically
known facts.
Suppression of
cognition has been
traditionally one of the defining
features of ideology.
This explains why ideology
has a tendency to prevail; it's
because the ideologues
silence the philosophers they
disagree with when they
have a chance. In this sense, ideology
tends to be anti-cognitive,
as it attempts to distort
reality. And so
do the ideologues.
Because of that
suppression,
ideology
tends to impose serious
restrictions of individual
liberty in order to
enforce that suppression. For
instance, ideology
typically attempts to restrict
freedom of speech by imposing censorship
that allows silencing its critics.
In fact, ideology
is a threat to liberty. It assumes submission
of individuals to the "higher
cause". Because of that
submission, ideology
is irreconcilable with the U.S.
Constitution
that puts the People before
everything else (in
particular, before any "higher
cause"). This
explains why the ideologues
are among the most
uncompromising critics of the
Constitution.
Observation:
One who is more interested in winning the debate
than in discovering the truth is more
likely to be an (Self-test: Are you?)
ideologue
(today's sophist) rather
than a philosopher.
Because of the
eventuality of preemption (as
well as other reasons),
utilitarianism discourages
self-reliance, responsibility,
initiative, and hard work as the
well-being of an individual is
not directly linked to his
performance. The promise of
happiness for all discourages
competition. As a
result, individual productivity
goes down and so does economic
sustainability. This is further
amplified by progressive
taxation (if it takes place)
according to the law visualized
on the Laffer curve:
Overpopulation that
utilitarianism usually spurs via
the maximization postulate makes
it even more unsustainable.
Because
utilitarianism is unsustainable, it
fails, eventually, to deliver on
its promises. Which does not mean
that, once it failed, the
utilitarian guardians (the
government) return the pre-empted
individuals rights back to the
individuals, as revocation of
individual liberties usually is a
one-way street. Those people who
submitted themselves to the
complete protection of these
guardians got lured into the
utilitarian trap: they end up in a
system with no universal happiness
and no individual liberties.
But the guardians
would not let the people escape
the utilitarian trap. They would
resort to all kinds of fallacious
rhetoric. They would
claim that the implementation of
utilitarianism failed because
those who implemented it were
opportunistic and not truthful to
the real utilitarianism that is
universal happiness. (That
basically means that if
utilitarianism does not deliver
on its false promises than,
automatically, it is not a fault
of utilitarianism, but
those who implemented it. Quite a
tautological argument,
isn't it?) Or that their
experiment failed not because of
utilitarianism but because of not
enough of utilitarianism. Or that
they cannot relinquish the power
they have now because that would
nix all the accomplishments of
utilitarianism that have been
achieved so far.
And they
conveniently "forget" to mention
that without utilitarianism,
virtually none of the mentioned
above failures would have
happened, and the opportunistic
leaders and failed implementers of
the system would not have risen to
power.
The
fallacies of this kind were common
among Western apologists for the
Soviet Union.
So, the unhappy and
unfree people may ask themselves
after the fact:
"Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes?"
loosely
translated
as:
"Who will protect us from our protectors?"
(This question was addressed
by Plato).
Illustration
from history: a face of socialism.
In
Soviet Union, a socialist (therefore,
utilitarian) system, the "protectors" became the oppressors. Here is a
link to biography of one of the most
"accomplished" ones, Soviet Gen. Vasili
Blokhin:
declared by Wikipedia "the most prolific official executioner
and mass murderer in recorded
world history".
Unfortunately, atrocities of
this kind are a logical consequence
of utilitarian (particularly,
socialist) ideology
that overrides individual sense of
morality (this kind of overriding is
often characteristic of collectivist
groupthink).
"The
troika [a committee of three,
in Russian], composed of a member of the state
police, a local communist party
secretary, and a state
procurator [district attorney], had the authority to
issue rapid and severe verdicts (death
or exile) without the right to
appeal."
[Just
in one year], "from
July 1937 to November 1938, 335,513
persons were sentenced by troikas
in the course of the implementation
of the National Operations. Among
them, 247,157 (or 73.6%) were executed by shooting."
The intolerance
towards those refusing to submit
themselves to the ideology
has been one of the defining features of
the collectivism
(and the Left). And yet, the intolerant ideologues
are quick to label their adversaries
as bigots. This
kind of paradoxical behavior is
known in psychology as projection.
Here
are links to a movie on Soviet-Nazi
co-operation that led to the
extermination of 22,000 Polish intellectuals and army officers by
the Soviet authorities (NKVD) at
the beginning of WWII; they were
killed because they were deemed
unwilling to submit themselves to
socialist ideology;
watching it is optional
buthighly recommended as an
illustration only; will not
be covered by tests or final (1 hr
56 min in Polish/Russian/German with English
subtitles, Oscar-nominated 2007):
"In
April 2009, the authorities of the People's Republic of
China banned the movie from being
distributed in the country due to
its anti-communist ideology."
Here is a
link to an optional but highly recommended CIA's Center for
the Study of Intelligence article
describing a background and the details
of the mentioned above genocide:
"Negative
rights
,
or
liberties,
are
rights
to
act
without
interference.
The
only
obligation
they
impose
on
others
is
not
to
prevent [...][the owners of the
rights] from acting. [...]
Claim
rights, or positive rights,
impose an obligation
on some people [or
groups, or
organizations, or
governments, or their
agencies] to [act in
certain way or to]
provide certain things
for [...][the owners
of the rights]"
(textbook, p. 35).
Typical contractual rights,
like, for instance, product
warranty rights, belong to
category of positive rights.
Negative rights usually
imply certain positive
rights on behalf of the
owners of the rights in the
case these rights have been
violated. For instance, a
violation of a negative
right to property becomes a
positive right (to reclaim
it) when the property in
question has been unlawfully
seized or stolen.
Since a
person generally does not
possess powers to exercise
his positive rights, it has
been one of the basic
function of a government to
enforce these rights, while
at the same time refraining
from unconstitutional
violations of the negative
rights. In particular, the enforcement of
contracts is one of the
basic functions of a
government. Also,
enforcement of the positive
rights that arise as a
result of violations of
negative rights, a.k.a. enforcement
of the law, for
instance, retrieval of the
stolen property and its
return to the lawful owners,
is one of the basic
functions of a government.
In
the case of some negative rights, like, for
instance, the right to life, a person
whose negative right has been violated may
have the positive right to resist such
violation with necessary means. For
instance, Second Amendment has been
interpreted as the Constitutional confirmation of a positive
right to use a firearm in self-defense within
the home (see the recent ruling of
the
STATES).
In
other
cases,
the
only
remedy
the
owner
of
the
negative
right
can
pursue
is
to
seek
protection
from
the
government
mentioned in the previous paragraph.
(Retrieval of a stolen
property usually belongs to
the latter category.)
Example.
The right to free speech (First
Amendment) is a negative right. In its
pure version, it gives a
member of class the
people the right of
express themselves
freely without being
restricted by the acts
of the U.S. Congress
("Congress
shall make no law [...] abridging
the freedom of speech [...]")
or, if the member belongs to
class citizens, by the acts of
the states ("No State shall
make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of
the United States", 14th
Amendment). If this negative
right is violated, say, by a
legislative act of State of
New Jersey, the federal
government (its executive or
judicial branch) will grant or
execute a positive right (to
revert the violations) on
behalf of the owner of the
negative right, be it by a
court order, by enforcement
act, or by a direct action. In
particular, Section 5 of 14th
Amendment grants to
the U.S. Congress power to
enforce its provisions.
Natural rights
belong to category of individual rights. They include the right
to life, liberty, and property.
Their idea is often attributed to
John Locke, as - for instance - in
this (optional) article:
Comment:
Communism
expressly rejects the right to
property, even if the property was
produced by direct work of the owner.
It also rejects, implicitly, the right
to liberty. Aggressive war
goes one step further; in addition to
rejecting the right to liberty and
property, it also rejects the right to
life.
A thin
(or blurred, if you will) line
between the negative rights
and the positive rights has
often been a source of
confusion, misinterpretation,
deprivation of, and abuse of
these rights.
For
instance,
a government
may
refuse
to
exercise
its
constitutional
powers
on
behalf
of
a
person
whose
negative
rights
have
been violated, quoting (usually,
implicitly) the fact that a negative right
does not impose an obligation on others to
provide on behalf of the owner of these
rights. Except for some cases, like
person's negative right to life that
implies the positive right of that very
person to self-defense, this refusal to
enforce de facto deprives the owner of his
negative rights.
Also,
an
owner
of
a
negative
right
may
turn
to
exercising
it
as
if
it
were
a
positive
right.
For
instance,
a person willing to exercise his free
speech right may (unlawfully) claim an
access to, say, private property in order
to express himself (say, by means of
graffiti painted on the walls of this
private property) freely. This typically
constitutes an unlawful abuse of a
negative right.
Human
rights
typically belong to the category of negative rights. At
times, they are misinterpreted as
positive rights. A socialist
revolution (like, for instance, Bolshevik
revolution in Russia in November 1917)
was by and large based on turning some
negative rights (like the right to
seek an employment or to perform a
profession) onto positive rights (that
were guaranteed by the so-called dictatorship of
proletariat).
Also,
violations of sovereignty of a country (wars,
invasions, migrations, etc.) are usually
the results of turning negative rights
onto positive rights.
For
instance,
arguably
negative
right
to
exercise
religion
has
been
historically
known
for
being
misinterpreted
as
a
positive
right
to
impose
it
on other nations. (Hence, religious wars.)
Also, the negative right to (pursuit of) happiness
gained some notoriety for being
misinterpreted as a positive right
when the pursuants resorted to
violations of someone else's property
or national sovereignty in the pursuit
thereof. Good examples here were raids of the
Vikings, Saracens, and Mongols
(who were unable or unwilling to
sufficiently provide for themselves
and their dependents so they chose to
resort to looting) on their neighbor
countries and mass migrations of
peoples, in particular, the
territorial claims (the actual
or perceived right to claim someone's
territory is a positive right) that
accompanied these migrations, at times
of turmoil and economic hardship.
Observation.Utilitarianism may be seen as based on a confusion of negative rights with positive rights and a logical consequence of transformation of the negative right to (pursuit of) happiness onto positive one.
Without such transformation there would be no valid
reason for involuntary
sacrifice of individual happiness for
the total (collective) happiness.
Once
the right to happiness becomes positive, a
strong (dictatorial) government
becomes a necessity.
This explains why
various experiments with
utilitarianism (socialism) ended
up as oppressive dictatorships.
Points for discussion
1.
How does utilitarianism transform negative
rights onto positive rights?
Because utilitarianism makes it imperative
to contribute to the happiness of
others, the others may have a claim
against an individual who refuses to
provide. This turns a negative right
to happiness onto a positive one.
Specific
example: In a
non-utilitarian society like ours, a
person has a negative right to life.
This right alone does not give the
person any claim rights against,
say, someone else's body organs. A
utilitarian society may deem it
permissible to deprive one person of
his life in order to save lives of
nine people. Such a permission would
turn the negative right to life of
these nine onto a positive right to
life. Now, they have a claim right
against one person's body organs.
Once they exercise their claim
right, the organs of that person
will be redistributed among the nine
people, thus saving their lives at
the expense of the life of the
captive donor. Hence the
transformation.
2.
How does the mentioned above transformation
make utilitarianism unsustainable?
Transformation of negative rights onto positive rights
creates disincentive to provide for self (in
particular, to provide for one's own
happiness) because an exercise of claim
rights may provide the claimant with the
necessities at the expense of others. This
lifestyle is often times referred to as social parasitism and the
individuals that profess it are referred to
as free riders. Once a
large enough portion of the society chooses
exercising of claim rights as their main
means of subsistence, those who are supposed
to provide what others claim may simply
refuse doing so and turn into exercising
their claim rights, instead, like everybody
else does. With virtually no one working,
and - therefore - not enough left to
parasitize upon, such a society becomes
unable to sustain its population and will
collapse, eventually. Moreover, the
Utilitarian government is destined to become
oppressive as some individuals will likely
refuse to give up their negative right to
the fruits of their work which the
Utilitarian government is not going to
tolerate. Hence the necessity of oppression,
which typically accelerates the
unsustainability.
Note. Many of my
students indicated another intrinsic
weakness of utilitarianism: an attempt to
"measure" ethical values with one standard
"utility" (e.g., total happiness). Although
this is a well known argument, it does not
prove that utilitarianism is unsustainable.
Since utilitarianism
is unsustainable, it cannot
survive on its own for a prolonged time.
Therefore, it shows a tendency to parasitize
on other systems, for instance, on
free-market capitalism. Today's People's Republic of China is a
prime example of this kind of parasitism.
Individual
rights
vs. "collective rights"
Individual
rights are the subject of protection by, and the
purpose of, the Bill of Rights (except a
part of 10th Amendment that
protects states' rights as well). The
Bill of Rights does not protect
"collective rights" (except in
part of 10th Amendment when it
explicitly mentions "States").
A
political system that is mainly based on
individual rights is often referred to
as individualism.
"Collective rights"
usually do not imply individual rights,
and oftentimes they are interfering with
individual rights.
Example of "collective right" in the US:
the right to be protected by law
enforcement from crime.
"In cases
such as DeShaney
v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock
v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme
Court has declined to put police and
other public authorities under any
general duty to protect individuals from
crime."
The above
quotation comes from:
“The Police
Have No Obligation To Protect You. Yes,
Really.”
Click here
to read a comment regarding "gun control"
as a reckless
endangerment of the law-abiding
Americans.
For
instance,
an
individual
who
has
been
deprived
of
his
share
of
a
collective
right
has
slim
chances
of
reclaiming
it
as
such deprivation is difficult to prove and even
if proved it can be easily justified by
the "common good". (How can one reclaim
one's "collective right" to life, liberty,
or property? Usually, one cannot.)
A
political system that is mainly based on
collective rights is sometimes referred
to as collectivism.
Here is a quote from Encyclopædia Britannica entry collectivism:
"Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism."
Utilitarianism
is
example
of
political
system (or ideology)
that
falls
into
the
category
of
collectivism.
The
right to happiness in utilitarianism is
only a collective right. An individual
may be deprived of his right if it
increases the happiness of the society
(actually or arguably).
In particular, socialism falls
into that category, too.
Myth:
Socialism is a system (or ideology) that
asserts collective ownership of means of
production.
Truth:
Some forms of socialism (for
instance, Marxism-socialism) do and
some (for instance, neo-socialism,
later merged with fascism ("socialism with a capitalist veneer"),
or "right-wing socialism") don't.
(Note:"Right-wing socialism" means right
relative to the "left-wing socialism", for
instance, right
relative to Marxism or
communism, but still within
scope of the classifier socialism,
and not the "right-wing" in
general. In particular, "right-wing
socialism" is a left-wing ideology.
Deriving a claim that the "right-wing
socialism" is actually a right-wing
ideology is a common
fallacy.
It has been a common, albeit
invalid, practice to label as
"far-right" many prominent
socialists who were considered
not genuine socialists or
those who dissented from some
original or main-stream
variants of socialism.)
Definition
of socialism from
Oxford Dictionaries (Oxford University
Press):
A
political and economic theory of social
organization which advocates that the
means of production, distribution, and
exchange should be owned or regulated
by the community as a whole.
Definition of socialism from Encyclopædia
Britannica:
social
and economic doctrine that calls for public
rather than private ownership or control
of property and natural resources.
According to the socialist view,
individuals do not live or work in
isolation but live in cooperation with one
another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is
in some sense a social product,
and everyone who contributes to the
production of a good is entitled to a
share in it. Society as a whole,
therefore, should own or at least control
property for the benefit of all its
members.
Thus,
a system that imposes collective
regulation or control of property,
and - in particular - means of
production, falls into the category of
socialism.
Needless to
say, socialism never worked
(why are we not surprised?) and always
failed to deliver on its promises of
lasting prosperity for all.
But ... the socialists keep trying.
And they seem
to have a fallacy
for every occasion when they are out
to defend
their ideology from its critics and
the facts that those critics bring
up.
“Insanity
is doing the same thing, over and over
again, but expecting different
results.”
Here is a
dust jacket of a book by a well-known
author and LA Times columnist, Jonah
Goldberg, published under somewhat
provocative title "Liberal
Fascism, The Secret History of the
American Left from Mussolini to the
Politics of Meaning" (as
usually, this is notan endorsement).
See also this video. It
could be used as an illustration to
Goldberg's book.
It's worth remembering that not
all forms of socialism
fall into the category of
Marxism-socialism. For
instance, some - like
Marxism-socialism - attempt to
implement communism
(a utopian and usually global or
trans-national social order with
no private property of any kind)
and some - like neo-socialism
(later merged with fascism)
- don't. As a matter of fact, some
forms of socialism -
like national socialism
- are/were in a staunch opposition
to communism; communism called for
abolition of private property and
capitalism while national socialism and fascismparasitized
on capitalism.
Equating socialism
and Marxism is a common mistake.
NOTE:
Marxism-socialism
(ostensibly, a
transitional state between
capitalism and communism)
is a form of collectivism
(the opposite to individualism).
“To
everyone according to his
needs, from everyone
according to his abilities.”
[Karl Marx]
Marx's doctrine
clearly contradicts the
concept of individual
liberty-responsibility
that is consider a core value
in a free individualist society,
where people are generally
responsible for providing for
themselves and are rewarded for
their contributions to the society.
(Not that anything is perfect.)
Marx's doctrine justifies pre-emption of fruits of work of a
highly
productive individual (usually, a
knowledge worker like you)
in order to redistribute them
among other individuals that need
them the most. (It may be
viewed as an attempt to maximize
utility of wealth.) Therefore, Marx's
doctrine rewards the needy while penalizing the able.
As such, it discourages
self-reliance, responsibility, initiative,
and hard work because the
well-being of an individual is a result of
his/her need and not a
function of his ability or productivity. Marx's
doctrine has a devastating effect on
competition (to the delight of the
mediocre and the low-skilled). Hence
the unsustainability of Marxism-socialism.
Here is a link to an optional
study of major flaws of Marx's
economic theory of labor:
In a
free society, any attempt to implement
Marx's doctrine is likely to lead to
exodus of actual and potential high
earners and influx of the needy (often
referred to as demographic change).
Although California is not a
Marxist-socialist state, its
government's attempts to
"intelligently" redesign California's
socioeconomic composition and
progressive taxation had a similar
effect
to Marx's doctrine.
"[...] the
top 20
percent of people to pay
income taxes account for 94.8 percent
of those taxes in 2016.
That appears to
be a jump from just a few years ago.
In 2015, the Wall Street Journal
reported that the top 20 percent of
income earners paid 84 percent of
income taxes."
"Americans
will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes and
$1.6 trillion in state and local taxes,
for a total bill of almost $5.0
trillion, or 31 percent of the nation's
income."
Comment (MS): The article suggests that "rob the rich" became "tax the rich" became "tax the high earners" for the benefit of the poor. One can have some doubts about ethicality and benefits for the society of such schemes.
Many of those
on the receiving end of the above
scheme used up their instant
gratification while you
delayed it. Now, you are a have
and they are havenots.
And this is supposed to make you
responsible for their lack of
success and give them the positive
right against your paycheck and
the fruits of your work.
The above redistributive scheme
clearly falls under the category
of utilitarianism.
By "shifting incomes" from haves to
havenots,
the scheme attempts to increase utilization of wealth. (The
quoted above article from the
Economist does not try to hide
that fact.) According to the
advocates of that scheme, the haves
do not utilize the wealth they
have accumulated and the money
they have saved well enough, thus
a portion of that "under-utilized"
wealth has to be "shifted" to havenots
who - according to these advocates
- will utilize it better. No
consideration is given to the
question whether the recipients
of that "shift" do deserve
receiving it.
(Clearly, they
have not earned it.)
Such
an arrangement is based on a tacit
assumption that maximization of
utilization is the overriding
value of humanity. No longer the
main purpose of life is to
perpetuate itself. Life - and the
natural rights (particularly, the
right to the fruits of one's own
work) associated with it - have to
yield to a "higher cause" - the
utility. Now, the goal of life is
to maximize utility, and the main
purpose of a society is to
perpetuate itself, while
individuals' purpose (an excuse
for existence, if you will) is to
serve the society as a whole. As a
result, previously free
individuals are being submitted to
the dictatorship of utility and treated as
if they were government's livestock. Seems like a
pretty horrible arrangement for
all those who value their freedom
and individual liberties.
(Note
that the Nazis were using
utilitarian argument to justify
their invasion of other
countries; that the land belongs
to those who can better utilize
it. They measured utilization of
land with the size and strength
of military forces that the
land's economy was capable of
supporting.)
The behavior of
the "instant
gratification" class is adaptive
(they are the ones who have
statistically more kids), while
the behavior of the "delayed
gratification" class is
maladaptive (they are the
ones who have statistically less
or no kids - just look at
yourself). This paradoxical
outcome is largely due to redistributive taxation
and other governmental policies
in the U.S. Thus the
"instant gratification" class is
growing while the "delayed
gratification" class is not.
This fact has a profound
detrimental effect on the
per-capita productivity of the
American society that may cancel
out the dramatic productivity
increase brought about by the
Information Revolution.
Since the "instant gratification"
class is more persuadable (by
means of digital advertizing,
marketing, and other methods of
persuasion based on predictive
analytics and Big Data) than the
"delayed gratification" class is
(simply because those who work
really hard all their lives are
more careful how do they spend the
money that they have earned), part of
the private sector,
particularly, the Big Tech companies, and their
leadership are supporting the
above redistributive scheme;
they do benefit from it,
financially, although - as the
above-quoted article form The
Economist suggests - not
nearly as much as the economists
have expected.
Also, since the "instant
gratification" class is poised to
become an electoral majority in
the U.S. (due to its
adaptiveness), the governments and
political parties support the
redistributed scheme to
the extent that they can claim
credit for it as it is likely to
secure votes of those who benefit
from it.
Under these circumstances, the highly productive
knowledge workers are likely to
become the exploited class.
And this, if it happens, will be
to a large extent self-inflicted
suffering, to heart content of Big
Tech companies. Unless, that is,
we understand how the feel-good
policies advocated today impact
the most productive and
hard-working members of the
society, and act accordingly.
Here is a
Political Science perspective on "fair share":
Comment (MS): Note that on the above
picture, "the
rich" are defined as "top
10 percent" and not as usual
(correctly or incorrectly) top 1
percent. As of 2015, making $114,000 a year (hardly, an
income characteristic of "the rich")
puts one in the top 10 percent income
bracket. If you graduate and have
successful career in computer-related
profession then you are likely to end
up as "the rich" (in top 10 percent of
earners, that is). That is going to be
the delayed
gratification for your hard
work as a student or a start-up small
business owner. Then you may be
pressured to give a substantial part
of the fruits of your work to those in
the instant-gratification
class. That is often done in the name
of social justice(those who have many
kids are automatically entitled
to the fruits of work of those who
have no kids or one or two kids
only). Of course,
the picture doesn't give a slightest
hint who actually created most of the
pie (inventors, entrepreneurs, and knowledge workers like you created the
lion's share of it). Anyway, the top 10 percent of earners generate 46 percent of
income but pay "only" 71 percent
of federal income taxes, 54
percent more than their proportional
share. The remaining 90 percent
generate 54 percent of income but pay
29 percent of federal income taxes,
approximately half (54 percent) of
their proportional share.
Here is
some historic perspective on "fair
share", "haves" vs "have nots", and
desert.
An excuse for launching WWII were
claims by some German leaders that
Germany did not get her "fair share"
in the aftermath of WWI.
In 1939,
the Polish people had Poland which
the German people had not. But the
latter needed what the former had
and stubbornly refused to share. So,
the needy "have nots", under the
leadership of Adolf Hitler, launched
a war on "haves" on September 1,
1939, and awarded themselves a "fair
share" of the lands of what they
called the East (about 2/3 of
pre-WWII Poland's territory, that
is). And the WWII begun from there.
Of course, the victors (German
military) - in a way somewhat
similar to universalists - did not
entertain questions whether the
German "have-nots" deserved the
said "fair share" and whether the
Polish "haves", who worked really
hard to rebuild their country, deserved to be
dispossessed from their historic
territory.
Meanwhile,
California senator's bill proposal offers more
subsidies to all those who report low
income. It appears that there is no
factual income verification or
provision of exclusion of those who
have low legitimate income due to
their own asocial behavior, for
instance, criminals; in a way
characteristic to universalistic justice, all in certain income
category will receive part of income
taxes paid by others whether they
actually deserve
it or not.
This
redistributive scheme does not
provide incentives for individuals
to be ethical or productive. It
contains a clue why our society is
becoming less ethical and more
opportunistic.
You could
get $6,000 a year under this
California senator’s new plan
"American
families making less than $100,000 a year
could be eligible for a monthly tax
credit of up to $500, or $6,000 a
year, under new legislation
announced Thursday by Democratic
U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of
California.
Individuals
making less than $50,000 would be
eligible for up to $250 a month,
$3,000 a year.
[...]
According to
Harris’ office, recipients could
receive the money in either monthly
payments or annually."
"Grueling
hours. Stress. Junk food and Red
Bull. Obesity is rising in
America’s economic frontier, and
the health consequences could be
dire.
[Comment (M.S.): Is it still surprising
that cognitive elite and
knowledge workers do not have
enough kids? The world is
"entitled" to free access to the
knowledge that they created (and
decries the so-called "digital
divide"), yet the undeveloped
nations who have much more natural
resources that they can ever need
or use charge us arm and leg for
the right to tap to those natural
resources. And nobody decries the
"natural divide".]
"Yee says
there’s a lot of blame to go
around. For all the talk in the
Valley about the power of big data
and analytics, some of her members
are guilty of not adequately
measuring the efficacy of wellness
programs, which seek to encourage
healthy habits among employees
(more on that later). And then
there’s the Valley’s
productivity-first culture. “I
really believe a case in point is
Yahoo,” Yee says. “So Marissa
Mayer is going to have twins.
That’s great. She can have a
career and have a family, and she
can obviously afford all the care
at home to take care of those
kids. But working right up until
the end of her term, what message
is she sending? Is it that
productivity is what really
matters? That’s counter to what HR
is trying to provide, a work-life
integration and balance.”
“People are
coming in asking me to fill a
combination prescription: Ritalin
and Xanax. One so they can perform
during the day and the other to
knock them out at night,” he says,
making me feel less guilty about
my own coffee and wine routine.
“And there are a lot of young
people in their twenties and
thirties who get these prolonged
respiratory issues in the winter.
You’re not supposed to be sick for
weeks at a time, but that seems to
be becoming more normal. It’s all
stress related.”
[A note on exploitation of
knowledge workers with strong work
ethic (M.S.): It should
surprise no-one that those who
have strong work ethic (often
referred to as "haves" in this
context) are constant target of
redistributive (political) means,
while those who work only when
they have to (often referred to as
"have nots") are usually not.
After all, the college graduates
have on average less children
than, say, high school dropouts,
which according to the above
knowledge workers' exploitation
scheme makes the latter automatically entitled
to the fruits of work of the
former.]
Political vs. economic means in Canada ...
Buying their
way to the front of the health-care line
"For a
fee, ‘boutique clinics’ offer everything
from speedy MRIs to ‘executive’ physicals.
Critics say it’s a two-tier system, but
clinics say they’re filling the gaps left by
OHIP"
"Waiting lists
in the public
system — made longer by
physicians moving into private clinics —
push many Ontarians to bypass by paying,
says Dickens.
The wealthy should not be
allowed to buy their way to faster urgent
care at private clinics where they can jump
the queue, says Natalie Mehra,
executive director of the Ontario Health
Coalition. “That is a violation of the
fundamental values of our society. It
should be stopped.” "
Note (MS): It appears that Canadians are
considered all equal when the health care
is concerned. Somehow, they are not
considered equal when the productivity is
concerned; some are expected to deliver
more and others are expected to deliver
less. The standard fallacious argument is that the more
productive won on "genetic lottery" so
that they have to split their "windfall"
with others.
As a result, Canadian
socialized health care system punishes the
productive hard-workers (like those in the
above article) who often are too busy to see
a doctor, never mind managing their
delayed health care via the waiting lists.
If they try, they may end up in line
behind those who do have abundance of time
to navigate through the system and its
waiting lists. How can they expect their
cognitive elite to grow?
A fairly typical example
how the socialized medicine "works".
New pattern of exploitation of highly
productive knowledge workers ...
Recall these graphs:
... and the
emergence of the donor class (that, as a whole, seems vehemently
opposed to the idea of armed citizenry)
Forget Wall Street – Silicon Valley is
the new political power in
Washington
"While the
big banks and pharma giants have
flexed their economic muscle in
the country’s capital for
decades, there’s one relative
newcomer that has leapfrogged
them all: Silicon
Valley. Over the last
10 years, America’s five largest
tech firms have flooded
Washington with lobbying money
to the point where they now
outspend Wall Street two to
one.
Google, Facebook,
Microsoft, Apple and Amazon
spent $49m on Washington
lobbying last year, and there is
a well-oiled revolving door of
Silicon Valley executives to and
from senior government
positions."
Comment (MS): They may be a
newcomer in Washington D.C.
but they, in addition of
Hollywood and labor unions,
have established themselves
(the "Donor Class") as thee political power in
California.
Five of
the best-known executives in
tech, Jeffrey Bezos of Amazon
(AMZN), Larry Page and Sergey
Brin of Alphabet (GOOGL), Bill
Gates of Microsoft (MSFT) and
Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook (FB)
all together hauled in more than
$10 billion in gains Friday from
their stocks following
astounding earnings reports.
That's a big slice of the $90
billion in total market value
creation minted on Friday for
all investors who own these
shares.
BIGGEST
PAPER WEALTH GAINS OF TECH
TITANS
Executive,
Company, Stock gain Friday ($ millions)
Jeffrey
Bezos, Amazon, $2,912
Larry
Page, Alphabet,
$2,480
Sergey
Brin, Alphabet,
$2,423
Bill
Gates, Microsoft, $1,117
Mark
Zuckerberg, Facebook, $1,074
Sources:
S&P Capital IQ, USA TODAY
QUESTION:
Why should computer professionals
(and students) need to be concerned
with a growing influence of
collectivism?
ANSWER:Computer-based
information
technology
allows for an unprecedented level of
surveillance of the society. It
also allows for information
control.
It provides the
collective (and its
ruling group)
with a new and powerful tools of surveillance and control of its
subjects and to prevent
the ruling group unaccountable to
these subjects from losing its
political power, thus making
economically-unsustainable collectivism
(in particular, globally-imposed
socialism) a more credible threat to
American individualism
than ever. The same tools
are being utilized to impose global
governance structures
that - by their very nature - are
devoid
of accountability
to The People.
As of
today, the above threat,
a real possibility of the emergence
of digitally-surveilled and controlled society,
brought about by the proliferation of
the computer-based technology(Big Data
with its predictive analytic
software, Artificial
Intelligence, Internet-based
technologies, like the
emerging Internet of Things)
that is being successfully used
to monitor and control markets,
is arguably the most critical
aspect of "Computers and
Society".
Such a threat
was predicted and described by
George Orwell in 1947 in his
famous novel "1984" .
We
will discuss the latter topic in
detail in Chapter 2, Privacy.
Here is a video with a trailer of Netflix movie "The Social Dilemma" that analyses in some depth the mentioned-above issues.
Here is a link to the full movie (optional to watch) "The Social Dilemma":
Those who would like to control information and its
flow do benefit from the tools
offered in the Information Revolution age, in
particular, from digital marketing
and advertizing tools (for
instance, Big Data, predictive analytics, Artificial Intelligence,
machine learning, data mining, Internet of Things, etc.) used for
markets' control. This explains
why imposition of ideology,
censorship,
and propaganda
is on the rise as giants like Google, Facebook, the so-called Tech Giants,
and other information-based
organizations are increasing their
software capabilities.
Attempts to control information and its
flow are visible in today's
society. They are usually results
of not trusting the
general population with its
ability to absorb and handle
truth. (How can one
expect that those who don't trust
The People with truth would
support the notion of accountability of the government to The People?) It has been characteristic of
Left-leaning political
organizations and governments that
have a natural propensity to control. Those who profess
information control often act as if they
were entitled to the monopoly on
knowledge of truth.
In some other countries, Big Tech companies are already showing their governments and their people who is the boss (the Big Tech companies are):
Facebook’s Australia News Ban Hits State Governments, Health Departments, and Weather Services
The
Facebook pages of Australia’s Queensland, South Australia, ACT Health,
the WA Fire and Emergency Services, and the Bureau of Meteorology have
been blocked after the social media giant banned Australians from
sharing news.
The pages were blocked as
Facebook followed through on its threat to restrict Australians from
sharing news on its platform in response to a proposed media bargaining
code.
The pages, which provide crucial government health and weather information and alerts, were blacked out on Thursday morning.
A Queensland government spokesman told AAP the matter will be investigated and Facebook will be contacted.
...
Australian users and publishers
are restricted from sharing or viewing domestic and international news
after Facebook followed through on threatened action in response to the
government’s proposed media bargaining code.
Some scholars have noticed Left-leaning
propensities among the top-level
management of "Big Tech" companies, as
described in the article, below.
The
Endgame of Big Tech Is Corporate
Socialism, Liberal Studies Scholar
Says
'Giant tech companies,
particularly those controlling the
flow of information on the internet, are
marching toward the creation
of their own brand of a
socialist system, says
Michael Rectenwald, a former liberal
studies professor at New York
University and author of “Google
Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the
Simulation of Freedom.”
Corporations such as Google
and Facebook
have aligned themselves with
leftist, progressive ideology and
have practiced what Rectenwald calls
“corporate
leftism,” an
ideology that, in practice, bears some
resemblance to the totalitarian system
practiced by the communist regime in
China.'
Comment (M.S.): Tech Giants have
benefited handsomely from the redistribution of income discussed above. So it does not
come as a surprise that they have
aligned themselves with political
Left.
The impact of computers and
computer-based technology on the
political direction of the American
society (a
gradual transition from
individualism to collectivism)
does not end with proliferation of
surveillance and loss of privacy.
Below is a link to an article (and a
quote from it) that describes how the wealthy entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley (many
members of the donor
class) "help" to transform
the US onto a one-party system,
just like it has been done in California.
They utilize the most advanced and
powerful software tools
that have been used for computer-based
digital advertising and
marketing. If they succeed then
we may say goodbye to America as the
Constitution defines her, and to our
liberties guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights.
The
stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup
that’s working to put Hillary Clinton
in the White House
"An
under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric
Schmidt has become a major technology
vendor for Hillary Clinton’s
presidential campaign, underscoring
the bonds between Silicon
Valley and Democratic politics.
The Groundwork,
according to Democratic campaign
operatives and technologists, is part
of efforts by Schmidt—the executive
chairman of Google
parent-company Alphabet—to
ensure that Clinton has the
engineering talent needed to win the
election. And it is one of a
series of quiet investments by Schmidt
that recognize how modern political
campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach
as vital ingredients that allow
candidates to find, court, and turn
out critical voter blocs."
Comment
by MS: They push for
one-party system so that there is no
competition between political
parties. Somehow, they are not very
concerned whom the majority of
American voters would like to elect.
Do We the People stand
any chance to prevail? Can we resist
being persuaded and controlled by
advanced and powerful advertising,
marketing, and business intelligence
and analytics software used by transnational
giants like Google?
Even if you
do not object to the results of
their actions, today, will you
like what they do tomorrow after
they strengthened their control of
you?
Here
is a memorable quote:
First they came for the
communists and I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade
unionists and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was
not a Jew.
Finally, they came for me
and there was no one left to speak
out.
Here
is a leaked video that shows Google's
leadership deep commitment to their political
agenda:
The
major problem with Google's raising political
power and their impact on the elections is
that they are not accountable to We the
People. If Google and social media moguls
(Facebook, Tweeter, etc.) acquire control
of information flaw in the American public
and develop effective algorithms to censor
information and opinions that goes against
their political agenda then Orwell's "1984"
nightmare (which we
will discuss later) may
become a reality.
Google is a monopoly
— and it's crushing the internet
"Five to 10 years ago, independent bloggers used
to be able to get by on internet
advertising, like the broadsheets of yore.
But that changed quite quickly, and for
two big reasons: Facebook and Google. They now gobble
up the vast majority of internet
advertising dollars — about 85 percent,
as my colleague Jeff Spross writes — and a
great many media outlets have been forced
to move to direct subscriptions or other
business models.
Google and Facebook manage this because
they are platform monopolists.
They can exert tremendous influence through their control of how
people use the internet — and crush productive
businesses in the process.
Like any monopoly, it is long since time
that the government regulated them to
serve the public interest."
Comment
(MS): Google is also
attempting to build political monopoly in the U.S., similar
to one-party system in
California. The way how markets can be
controlled, the politics
can be controlled, too.
Nader: Hit Google-Facebook-Apple 'monopoly'
with antitrust laws
"Consumer
advocate Ralph Nader, concerned about fake news
prevalent on social media sites, believes
Congress should weigh in with antitrust
legislation targeting Facebook, Google,
Microsoft and Apple."
"[...] since the social media sites
control so much money-making traffic they
should be subject to anti-monopoly laws."
Here is more on the subject of
controlling individual with
technology:
Scientists claim they can change your belief
on immigrants and God – with
MAGNETS
"A bizarre
experiment claims to be able to make Christians no
longer believe in God and make
Britons open their arms to
migrants in experiments
some may find a threat to their
values.
Comment (by M.S.): Will the
Silicon Valley wealthy
entrepreneurs resort to this
kind of high-tech tools in their
efforts to promote their
favorite political party? Will
the governments they help to
elect use it to rid the society
of "xenophobes" that "cling to
their Bibles and guns"?
Researchers Drug Test
Subjects to Curb 'Xenophobia'
A recent
paper published in the
Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences details the
effects of administering oxytocin,
a hormone known to enhance
empathy, on subjects believed to
hold xenophobic attitudes.
Stop for a
minute to consider how many
things are disturbing in
that sentence.
The study,
which was "approved by the
Institutional Review Board of
the Faculty of Medicine of the
University of Bonn" and "carried
out in compliance with the
latest revision of the
Declaration of Helsinki,"
combined social pressures with nasally administered
oxytocin in an effort to alter
participants' social
behavior. In
explaining the reason for the
study, the researchers note that
the United Nations has
recently "emphasized the
importance of developing
neurobiologically informed
strategies for reducing
xenophobic, hostile, and
discriminatory attitudes."They cite
the recent electoral success
of European populists who are
critical of refugee
resettlement as a reason to
urgently pursue these
neurobiological strategies.
Free market model
(usually a defining feature of individualist
society) may be characterized by
this doctrine:
To everyone
according to his (materialized)
abilities, from everyone according
to his (consumed) needs.
The above
doctrine certainly fosters competition and investment,
and favors those who have
exceptional abilities and burdens
those who have exceptional needs.
For
example, the Soviet
Union was a socialist
(Marxist) country
based mainly on collective
rights. It
professed collectivism.
Very seldom, if at all,
individuals could successfully claim
their collective rights, so the abuse
by their ruling elite was a
commonplace.
Collectivism
submits an individual to the society.
As such, it tends to
promote mediocrity and discourage work ethic
as mediocre
individuals seem more likely to accept
their total submission to the
collective and its "common cause" as spelled out
by the ideology. Also,
they are more likely to delegate their
thinking and their rights to the
authorities.
The above tendency facilitates below-average performance and has a particularly detrimental impact on average productivity of knowledge workers, which category includes software engineers and other computer professionals. This fact explains why the volume of software production and its quality in collectivist societies tends to fall behind those in individualist societies.
Collectivism
attracts below-average performers as they
hope to by pulled up to the average level
by the collectivist society. Collectivism
often resorts to forced social leveling. By doing so, it removes incentives for
competition, which it usually
replaces with central planning. Each of
these effects is a sufficient reason of
economic failures of collectivist
societies. This also explain why the Soviet Union (a collectivist society) was permanently lagging behind the United States (an individualist society) in computer technology.
Unlike individualism, collectivism tends to declare society a "higher good" or a "higher cause" that all individuals must submit to, and unconditionally so. It is worth noting that it is the nature of a religion to declare certain entity as the supreme being and to call the members to permanently submit to that supreme being. Thus ideology of collectivism often exhibits characteristics of religion in which god is replaced with society and clergy is replaced with society's ruling class that tends to be unaccountable to its subjects. This observation explains usual reluctance of advocates of collectivism to engage in rational and fact-based discussion of its flaws (some of those advocates are simply to "religious" about their ideology to entertain its criticism), as well as their tendency to promote authoritarian forms of government (like, for instance, in Soviet Union and Nazi Germany).
Typical individualism does not exhibit the above characteristics, which explains why philosophy of individualism does not need any ideology.
Egalitarianism
in its extreme version
leads to social leveling.
Here is a de Tocqueville's
quote on egalitarianism:
"Democratic
nations
are
at
all
times
fond
of
equality,
but
there
are
certain
epochs
at
which
the
passion
they
entertain
for
it
swells to the height of fury. [...] The
passion for equality
penetrates on every side into men's
hearts, expands there, and fills them
entirely. Tell them not that by this
blind surrender of themselves to an
exclusive passion they risk their
dearest interests; they are deaf. Show
them not freedom
escaping from their grasp while they
are looking another way; they are blind, or rather they can
discern but one object to be desired
in the universe."
Somehow,
in many egalitarian societies (in particular, in societies committed to
Marxism-socialism), although all people
are declared equal, some are more able
and, therefore, have to produce more work (and/or pay more taxes),
while some others are more needy and,
therefore, are entitled to the fruits of
work of others (according to Marx's doctrine).
In the U.S., the uneven individual taxes
collected from households are redistributed
unevenly back to households. How come all
people are not equal in this respect?
Remember this graph?
Some
justify
the taxing and redistribution inequality
with saying that "we all have equal
stomachs". This observation is supposed to
justify social
justice (a.k.a. redistributive
justice). Somehow, the alleged "stomach equality"
does not apply to other organs, so we do
have unequal brains and unequal hands and
some are supposed to produce more work and
value (for instance, educated knowledge
workers) than others. There is no equality in effort, investment, planning, and orderly conduct, as different individuals exercise their freedom differently in these aspects of their endeavors. Thus the equality in
this context is understood as the equality of outcomes (a.k.a. equity), and leads to forced egalitarianism in which qualified (usually, disadvantaged, in particular, less able, less willing, less accomplished, less earning, etc.) individuals are being awarded, by the law, policy, or government's program, certain free socio-economic benefits/entitlements that are not free or generally not available to others.
Individualism
protects individuals against
tyranny of the society, a.k.a.
tyranny of the
majority, (and its
government). It attracts
talented, ingenious, and productive
individuals who can enjoy the fruits
of their work. It fosters healthy
competition, which by
rewarding success boosts progress in
manufacturing and services. It is not a coincidence that today's computer technology has been invented, implemented and perfected in individualist societies.
As a
result, the individualist societies
tend to provide higher average
living standards for their members
than the collectivist societies do.
The
political system of the U.S. is
mainly based on individual rights.
Most notably, the right to life,
liberty,
and property.
It could be characterized as individualism.
Individuals are often successful
in claiming their individual rights on
their behalf.
Classifier capitalism
is often used in reference to the U.S.
It often is used as an antonym of socialism, but
that would be a false dichotomy.
Here is a definition of capitalism from
Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Capitalism,
also
called
free
market economy, or free
enterprise economy, economic
system, dominant in the Western world
since the
breakup of feudalism, in
which most of the
means of production are privately
owned and production
is guided and income distributed
largely through
the operation of markets."
Here is a
link to the classic comprehensive study (optional
reading) of the origin
of modern Western capitalism (not to be confused with:oligarchic capitalism, crony capitalism, or stakeholder capitalism a.k.a. ESG capitalism) and its
relationship to ethics(as opposed to mere pursuit
of gain or desire of wealth, or to seeing
work as a necessary evil).
Max Weber argued in it that "the Protestant ethic (or
more specifically, Calvinist ethic)
motivated the believers to work hard,
be successful in business, [live thrifty
lives,] and reinvest their
profits in further development
rather than
frivolous pleasures"
(quotation from Wikipedia article).
Thus,
according to Weber,
Ethic of work,
self-restrain, and preference for delayed
gratification were
among the necessary conditions
for capitalism to emerge.
"The
impulse to acquisition, pursuit of gain,
of money, of the greatest possible amount
of money, has in itself nothing to do with
capitalism. This impulse
exists and has existed among waiters,
physicians, coachmen, artists, prostitutes,
dishonest officials, soldiers, nobles,
crusaders, gamblers, and beggars. One may
say that it has been common to all sorts and
conditions of men at all times and in all
countries of the earth, wherever the
objective possibility of it is or has been
given. It should be taught in the
kindergarten of cultural history that this
naive idea of capitalism must be given up
once and for all."
"the template for
American success:
conscience, hard work,
civic-mindedness, a desire to
succeed and a distrust of sensual
pleasure and anything that isn't
useful."
Thus
capitalism stops
delivering once work is regarded a
necessary evil, self-indulgence and
desire of instant gratification
a laudable behavior, freedom an obstacle
to equality, and property rights the
cause of poverty and exploitation.
In
other words,
The
functionality of capitalism does
depend on the prevailing attitudes
and mentality of the population.
Capitalism did not just pop up
everywhere, but in a small number of
Northern-European, predominantly
protestant nations. Therefore, it would
be absurd and irrational to assume
without a proof that the functionality
of capitalism does not depend on the
prevailing attitudes and mentality of
the population. Thus mass immigration
from regions (for instance, the former
Soviet Union) that were not conductive
to the emergence of capitalism must have
been likely to lead to its
dysfunctionality and, perhaps,
pathological forms (all these in
addition to the rising anti-capitalist
sentiments in the U.S.). After all,
these are the
peoples that define the
characteristic attributes of their
countries and not the other way around.
So, we are likely to lose
it if we do not care.
Unlike modern Western capitalism, anti-capitalism
(for instance, Marxism) does need an ideology
(which, in turn, assumes people are submissive)
without which it would not gain enough
traction in a modern Western society.
Today's computer
is a product of modern Western capitalism.
For instance, Soviet Union had a long
history of failed attempts to lead in the
development and manufacturing of computers.
It was lagging behind the U.S. and Western
Europe in this respect. It was improving its
computing capabilities by means of copying
(usually, with disregard to intellectual
property rights) of digital technologies
that were invented and implemented
elsewhere.
Superiority of free-market economy over centrally
("scientifically") planned and controlled
economy
The
struggle between free-market capitalism
and planned-economy of socialism
in industrialized countries is a struggle between
productivity and inefficiency. Capitalism
is like a powerful computer network that
can efficiently and quickly solve hard
problems and process gargantuan amounts of
information. Socialism is like an
old-fashioned mainframe computer that does
not offer enough flexibility, freedom,
speed, and scallability to compete with
the net.
The superiority of free-market capitalism over
socialism
(the latter based on strong, central
government, central planning, "scientific"
control of economy) can be explained using
an analogy with distributed, massively
parallel, and
non-deterministic computing that
dramatically outperforms centralized,
sequential, deterministic computing.
Distributed computing exhibits fundamental
advantages (e.g., computational speed-up,
scalability, flexibility, robustness)
over centralized computing,
particularly in the context of massively
parallel computing. This is why it becomes
the prevailing model of modern computing.
For instance, a large number of computers running in
parallel in a peer-to-peer network tend to
dramatically outperform a centrally- or
hierarchically-controlled computer system.
The success of the Internet is largely
due to its decentralization. (So,
beware of any attempts to centrally
control or regulate it as such measures
can cripple its efficiency.) It would notfunction as amazingly
well as it does if it were submitted to
a central (say, governmental) control
(including regulation).
Non-deterministic
computational model explains success of
life
Life is a set of distributed and non-deterministic processes
that defy predictions and planning.
Attempts to subjugate it to a centralized,
deterministic control, via - for instance
- simplistic "axioms" of Marxian
materialism or utilitarian
hurray-optimistic program of predictive
optimization (a version of central
planning), are not just absurd, they are
counter-productive and often dangerous. It
was not a random coincidence that modern,
free-market capitalism succeeded while
simplistic (if not naive) authoritarian
utilitarianism (which includes socialism)
failed. And these are the repeat failures
of the latter that make it so dangerous
for the humanity.
A free-market
economy consists of a large
number of cooperating individuals,
who are exercising their freedom,
are genuinely
willing to solve the
problems, and are talented and equipped
with desirable tools for that purpose.
These are exactly the
properties that the
simplistically-minded governmental
bureaucrats and other policymakers are
typically missing. Is it
surprising that the government-run
enterprises are costly, inefficient, and
have a tendency to deteriorate? (I think
not.)
Attempts to submit our free-market economy to central planning
or governmental regulation and control
constitute a backward trend. (Paradoxically,
some call it "progress".)
They will have similar effects as attempts to
move back from today's distributed,
massively parallel computing to the
pre-Internet era of centralized computing
of 1950s. (Not good, that is.)
America's tremendous economic success
has its roots in the same prerequisites
(work ethic,
freedom
of enterprise (liberty), and protection
of individual property).
One can use "the popular writings of Benjamin
Franklin as an example of how, by
the eighteenth century, diligence
in work, scrupulous use of time, and deferment of
pleasure had become a part
of the popular philosophy of work in the
Western world" (quotation from Historical Context of the Work
Ethic by Roger B. Hill).
Note:
The first use of the adjective capitalist is credited to
novelist Thackeray (in 1854, long time
after the U.S. Constitution was
ratified). About the same time, the
"founding fathers of socialism," Marx
and Engels, used it (kapitalist) in their book "Das
Kapital" published in 1867 that laid
foundations of anti-capitalist
ideology. Since then, the noun
capitalism was coined and became
popular.
The
noun capitalism
is not mentioned in the Constitution or
its Amendments. So, should our political
system be referred to as capitalism
or individualism?
At least,individualism is the opposite to collectivism,
which classifier includessocialism.
In
societies and groups sympathetic to socialism, the
noun capitalism is often
used as a pejorative epithet, a poster
boy to blame for various societal
problems. Thus using the
noun capitalism often invites
political attacks.
In particular, capitalism (and
quite often individualism) is
being incorrectly characterized as "selfish"
due to the fact that it harnesses
individuals' self-interest as
a motivation to succeed and be
productive. However, self-interested
and selfish are not to be
conflated as they possess dramatically
different connotations and ethical
attributes. Moreover, it does make
huge difference whether a
self-interested individual is good or
evil, similarly to whether one
receiving a gift of fire is good or
evil. Self-interested good people (a
vast majority of them being not
selfish) tend to drive the economic,
scientific, and technological progress
forward, which improves the prevailing
quality of life in the U.S., while
self-interested evil people (many of
them being selfish or psychopathic)
tend to inflict harm to innocent
others.
"Market relationships are constantly
criticized as selfish or greedy,
with rewards to selfishness
rendering them ethically damaging.
As Friedrich Hayek put it, 'the
belief that individualism approves
and encourages human selfishness is
one of the main reasons why so many
people dislike it.' However, that charge is false."
[...]
"
It is clear that market participants
cannot be adequately characterized
as motivated by greed. So what explains such false attacks?
The attacks come when some people
think their preferences should
override the preferences of property
owners and owners’ control of their
own property. Yet, they are unable
to get the owners’ voluntary
consent. So such owners and
ownership must be demeaned, and then
self-defined reformers can impose
their preferences on owners without
noticing it puts their own greed on
obvious display."
[Comment (MS): Did anyone mention greedy and selfish lamb that refuses to give its own protein?]
Note (M.S.)Ethics
augments human nature (usually, by means
of reason and voluntary self-restrain),
while ideology
attempts to "correct" it (usually, by
means of coercion and
submission).
A note on competition
Competition is a driving
force of socio-economic improvement,
but only if it is meaningful.
Competition that is controlled
by a selected group (for instance, by
the government or a committee) is usually not meaningful
and, therefore, it is usually not beneficial
to the society and its economy.
For
example, if a government,
its bureaucracy, or a committee, that is excluded from the
competition (which it typically is) selects winners and
losers then the controlled competition
that results from such an arrangement is
no longer the driving force of the
socio-economic improvement.
For otherwise, where does the
wisdom of the government and
its bureaucracy (or the committee) to
select winners and losers come from?
We have only one (federal, state,
local, etc.) government at a time. So,
there is a natural lack of competition at
the government level. This has
a definitely detrimental effect on
government's improvement.
It subjected
governments and the ruling elite to a
meaningful competition that
would give improvement a chance. Of
course, such an arrangement presumes that the voters are
rational and make free choices.
(Does it sound familiar?) This, however,
may or may not be the case.
Existing computer-based
information technology may help
the voters to be well-informed, thus
letting them benefit from their
rationality. But it also may be used to dis-inform them
and to predict and influence their
reactions and behavior.
A memorable line:
"The trouble with the world is
not that people
know too little, but that
they know
so many things that ain't
so."
Mark
Twain
So, existing computer-based
information technology may shield the
government and the ruling elite from
meaningful competition. When it
happens, there is no
logical reason for improvement
any more.
If one political party acquires a monopoly on political power then
elections lose most of its meaningful
competitiveness. This
causes similar detrimental effects as elimination of
meaningful competition in a socialist
society had on technological and
economic progress - it stops the improvement and often reverses it.
Conclusion
Therefore, do not be
surprised if a non-competing government
in a one-party state, particularly
when elected by misinformed or
irrational electorate or when the
elections are decided by influential
groups (e.g., the media or the donor class), runs the
state and its economy to the ground.
Here is what one can accomplish
with twisting the language in order to obfuscate
the truth.
Now,
what was on the Left before the
twist may appear on the Right
after the twist. This trick,
intended to inject confusion to
political controversies, has been
pulled on us for almost 100 years,
now.
Below is the American Left's
perspective on the Left-Right
spectrum. It apparently
borrows from Marx's
prediction of inevitability of socialism.
It can be characterized as political relativism.
The
Left, openly sympathetic to fascism and
nazism before WWII, simply had to
find a way after WWII to
disassociate itself from the
atrocities of Auschwitz and
Dachau. They branded fascism
and nazism "far-Right" ("false
Right" is a more adequate
name for it) in order to make it
appear as distant form the Left as
possible.
The above is the
American Left's perspective on
the Left-Right spectrum.
Below
is the actual and complete
Left-Right spectrum:
The above diagram makes it clear that fascism is about as much "right-wing" ideology as West Palm Beach (a town on the East Coast of Florida) is a citiy in Western U.S.
Note 1: A major difference
between People's Republic of
China and
Soviet Union was
that China'ssocialism
in its present form is parasitic socialism
(it parasitizes on Western
capitalism without killing
the host) while Soviet
socialism was mostly not
(the Soviets killed their
principal weak host early
on.) Note that in their late
forms, both People's
Republic of China and
Soviet Union, as well as
Eastern-European socialist
countries fell under the
category of democratic socialism; the
latter called themselves People's
Democracies.
Note 2: In some
contexts, the classifier democratic
socialism is used as
an opposite to revolutionary
socialism. (Recall the quote from Marx who postulated that “Democracy
is the road to Socialism.”) It
indicates the way in which
the socialism was
established there, that is,
as a result of a majority
vote and not a violent
revolution. In that sense, Venezuela became a country of democratic
socialism in 1998
when socialism was
democratically established
there as a result of
2/3 of popular vote.
Possible scenario for
democratic socialism in
the U.S.: Imagine what
may happen after America
opens its borders to all
prospective immigrants and
half billion Chinese, many of whom supported Communism in the People's Republic of China (PRC), decide to immigrate to the
U.S. After a short time,
they will become the electoral
majority
here and be able to establish their preferred model of democracy, which
is likely to be similar to the one that is currently in place in PRC: democratic socialism. Such
a scenario was envisioned by
Karl Marx - click here
for his quote.
"Individualism is a concept which the
advocates of most political
systems try desperately to avoid.
They'd prefer that political contests,
debates and symposia were limited to
answering loaded questions such as,
'WHICH type of powerful
government should we have?',
'WHICH type of
dictatorship do you tend to
prefer?",
WHAT KINDS of intrusiveness should
government engage in?' and,
'WHICH type of control freaks
are best suited to run your life for
you?' ..." [Comment (MS): And it
does not make that of much difference whether those control freaks are
for or against abortion or teaching evolution in schools.]
"Professor
R. J. Rummel [...]
estimates that in the 20th
century 262,000,000
people were murdered by
their own governments.
And the vast majority
of these horrors were
perpetrated by collectivist [mostly socialist]
governments
[...].
Comment (M.S.)
Less than est. 25,000,000
people were murdered by
private perpetrators
in the 20th century; 10
times less than the number
of those murdered by their own governments
(according to Prof.
Rummel, who popularized
the concept of democide).
Those
of you who take your
individual liberties and
secure lives for granted
may wish to contemplate on
the meaning of these
photographs. A glance at
history of humanity tells
us that a country like
ours that offers to
average folks lasting
freedom, prosperity, and
safety is an exception. It
will disintegrate if we do
not defend it with
everything we have, as
previous generations of
Americans had done many
times in the past. We
will be much more likely
to succeed in our
defenses if we don't
give up our fundamental
right to keep and bear
arms that has
been guaranteed by 2nd
Amendment for
over 200 years, now.
Current
events ...
Executions
in China
said to outpace world despite
decline https://apnews.com/29d03251811647e48c9636c855bc45a7 "China's
use of the death penalty remains
shrouded in secrecy and still
outpaces the rest of the world
combined, even after the
nation's execution rate fell
sharply over the past decade,
human rights activists said
Tuesday."
Under those circumstances, why
would you want to delegate to
your government the monopoly
on deadly force and violence?
"For your protection"? Your
rights may end right were
their necessity
begins. If that happens then who is going to protect you from
your protectors?
Here is what happened during the
third phase (the Terror,
1793-94) of the French
Revolution:
Hover your mouse cursor over the above picture to see an important comment.
QUOTES:
"The
American
attitude toward the French
Revolution has been
generally
favorable—naturally
enough for a nation
itself born in
revolution. But as
revolutions go, the French one
in 1789 was among the
worst. True, in
the name of liberty,
equality, and
fraternity, it overthrew
a corrupt regime. Yet
what these fine ideals
led to was, first, the Terror and
mass murder in
France, and then
Napoleon and his wars,
which took hundreds of
thousands of lives in
Europe and Russia. After
this pointless slaughter
came the restoration of
the same corrupt regime
that the Revolution
overthrew. Aside from
immense suffering, the
upheaval achieved
nothing. Leading
the
betrayal of the Revolution’s
initial ideals and its
transformation into a
murderous ideological
tyranny was
Maximilien Robespierre,
a monster who set up a system
expressly aimed at killing thousands of innocents
[the link added].He knew
exactly what he was
doing, meant to do it,
and believed he was
right to do it. He is
the prototype of a
particularly odious kind
of evildoer:
the ideologue
who believes that
reason and morality
are on the side of his
butcheries."
"Having secured Paris,
in 1793 Robespierre
appointed commissioners
to enforce his
interpretation of the
Revolution outside the
capital. In the city of
Lyon, writes Simon
Schama in Citizens, the
guillotine began its
work,
[the picture added - hover your mouse cursor over the picture to see an important comment]
but
it was found to be “a
messy and inconvenient
way of disposing of the
political garbage. . . .
A number of the
condemned, then, were
executed in mass shootings.
. . . [A]s many as sixty
prisoners were tied in a
line by ropes and shot at with
cannon. Those
who were not killed
outright by the fire
were finished off
with sabers, bayonets,
and rifles. . .
. "
"These atrocities
were not unfortunate
excesses unintended by
Robespierre and his
henchmen but the predictable
consequences of the ideology
that divided the world
into “friends” and
less-than-human
“enemies.” The ideology
was the repository of
the true and the good,
the key to the welfare
of humanity. Its
enemies had to be exterminated
without mercy because
they stood in the way.
As the ideologues
saw it, the future of
mankind was a high
enough stake to justify any deed that served
their purpose."
"There [was]
no crime, no murder,
no massacre that
[could not] be
justified, provided it
be committed in the
name of an Ideal.”
"While it
is hardly any comfort to their victims,
the two people most associated with
mass deaths in this bloodiest of human
centuries -- Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin -- were
likely surpassed by a third, China's Mao Zedong."
[...]
"While most scholars are reluctant to
estimate a total number of "unnatural
deaths" in China under Mao,
evidence shows he was in some way
responsible for at
least 40 million deaths and perhaps 80 million or more.
This includes deaths he was directly
responsible for and deaths resulting from
disastrous policies he refused to change."
[...]
"In comparison, Hitler is
blamed for 12
million concentration camp
deaths and at least 30 million other deaths
associated with World War II, while Stalin is
believed responsible for between 30
million and 40 million "unnatural deaths,"
including millions from a famine he
created."
Comment
(MS): It so happened that all
three of them were collectivists
(socialists or communists). Thus a claim
that collectivism kills has
quite a lot of supporting evidence.
Here is a History Channel documentary "Inside Pol Pot Secret" documentary (video, 42
min) about a democide committed
by another notorious
collectivist,(communist, to be more specific) Pol Pot, in
Cambodia in late 1970s. This video contains images of graphic nature. Viewers' discretion is advised.
QUESTIONS
- If an ideologue
can commit horrible
atrocities for a
"good cause" then
what would make you
think that he/she
will not able to
commit them for a
bad cause, like his own
empowerment or
enrichment?
- If the government
has a monopoly on
violence that it is
supposed to exercice
for a
"good cause" then
what would make you
think that it will
not exercise it for
a bad cause, like
making itself
unaccountable to We
the People and,
therefore, awarding
itself perpetual
monopoly on power?
- Even if you think
that you are
benefiting from
weaponizing of the
government (say, for
a "good cause") or a
similar
"revolutionary" act,
you should be as
worried about it as
those who are the
target of it. For tomorrow
it can be you who
is going to be
deprived of
something for the
benefit of
somebody else.
A propos ethicality
of some gun-control
advocates ...
Former L.A. County Sheriff Lee
Baca Sentence to 3 Years
in Federal Prison for
Leading Scheme to Obstruct
Investigation into Jails
"Former
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee
Baca, who was convicted of
overseeing a scheme
designed to obstruct a
federal investigation into
corruption and civil
rights abuses at county
jail facilities, was
sentenced today to 36
months in federal prison." FLASHBACK:
August 2013
Comment (MS): Based on the
above, I concluded that he
supervised a cover-up of
corruption and prisoners'
abuse in country jails and
appeared to me as corrupt to the core.
Another influential group
that is
increasingly
opposed to
private gun
ownership
are businessmen who sell
recreational
drugs, violent
videos,
and similar
"entertainment"
products to the
American public,
and for obvious
reason: drugs,
guns, and violence
don't mix. Also, those
advocating
serious
reductions of
incarceration
rates in
the US are
typically opposed
to private gun
ownership, often
blaming violent
crimes committed
by the parolees on
"availability of guns" and
not on the real
root cause of the
problem: the
failure of the
justice system
to remove
violent
criminals from
the society.
Meanwhile, there were about 21,500 murders
in the U.S. in 2020, and est. 93,331 drug overdose deaths. Yet the current trend is to gradually disarm the American citizenry while gradually legalizing drugs.
Recall the T.S. Eliot quote that
characterizes the above
described efforts.
For it is difficult, if at all
possible, to submit armed
individualist citizenry to a
collective. From that
perspective, it is not
surprising that the unparalleled
degree of individual freedom is
offered to its citizens by the
country (the U.S.) that
guarantees to those citizens the
RKBA.
Without the latter, it is only a
matter of time when the wealth
of haves in an affluent country
like the U.S. is going to be forcibly
redistributed among the
havenots. Individually-owned
(by haves) firearms are a
serious obstacle for such a
redistribution.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is
the whole people. To disarm the
people is the best and most
effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author
of Second Amendment
“Those
who beat their swords (or guns) into
plowshares will plow for those who
don't.” [One of
several version of a popular proverb
of unknown origin from the Internet.]
The following research paper,
written by a sociologist,
indicates statistical
correlation between gun control
and advocacy of collectivism. It was written
under the auspices of an
organization that tends to
view individual gun
ownership in the U.S. as a
health hazard. (Oddly enough,
that organization does
not consider socialism or communism a
health hazard
although tens of
millions of inocent
civilians were killed by
socialist and communist
regimes.) The
author shows some typical
bias towards collectivism,
nevertheless it is a very
interesting read.
Individualism
and collectivism
in America: The
case of gun
ownership
and attitudes
toward gun
control
Social pressure and structures
may promote/propel
collectivist tendencies
among individuals. Current
public education system
does; for instance, co-operative learning encourages groupthink
and discourages
competitiveness,
both of which are
congruent with
collectivism. Also, see "Culture and
psychology: You are
what you eat"
for an explanation why
many Chinese citizens show
natural propensity towards
collectivism.Just look how
they voted to retain their
current president,
indefinitely.
Chances are that they will
maintain their political
propensities and voting
preferences regardless of
place and time. The above
seem like insightful
illustrations (or possible
scenarios) of what can we
expect from collectivist
re-make of America if it
takes place.
A
California senatoris trying to make
government-appointed agencies decide what is
true and what is false, ostensibly, in
order to prevent "fake news". This is a
typical for collectivism
attempt to impose speech control,
a.k.a. censorship,
on the people in order to prevent them
from
questioning validity and
rationality of
governmental actions and
policies.
Comment (MS): Does Sen. Pan
assume that the People are too
stupid to sort out truth from
falsehood for themselves, and
distrusts People's choices in this
matter? This would be not quite
surprising in a state that doesn't
seem to trust its citizens with
firearms. After all, gun control and speech
control seem to go along
together well.
Lately, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security established Disinformation Governance Board that is charged with prevention of "misinformation" by, reportedly, policing free speech online,
Below, is a short description of how the alleged claims of prevention
of "misinformation" may itself become an actual misinformation.
The Campaign Against Misinformation Is Disinformation https://townhall.com/columnists/laurahollis/2022/04/28/the-campaign-against-misinformation-is-disinformation-n2606459 Here’s
how it works: They disseminate lies that become the official
“narrative.” When others raise questions, point out facts that
controvert that narrative or attempt to bring the truth to light, that
truth is called “misinformation” or “disinformation.”Those who
challenge the narrative are smeared as liars, kooks and conspiracy
theorists. And when that fails to stop the truth-tellers, the social
media companies (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others) shadowban them,
hide their content under false “warnings” or kick them off the
platforms outright. Comment (M.S.): Now, the actual liars accuse those who unmasked them as the spreaders of "misinformation".
An example of major clash
between (early)
collectivist culture
and (early)
individualist culture
in modern times was Mongol invasion of Europe ca 1240. European
military individualism
was no match for Mongol
military collectivism,
which mismatch resulted
in slaughter of est.
100,000+ Europeans
(including est. 70,000
of knights in two major
battles in April of
1241: the Battle of
Mohi, Hungary, and the
Battle of Legnica,
Poland). This example
illustrates the intrinsic advantage that
collectivism holds
against individualism,
particularly, when the
individualists are not
armed well enough. At
that time, Mongol
Empire, although
relatively primitive
and extremely barbaric,
was the largest empire
in the history of
mankind; in 1240, it
stretched from China to
Central Europe.
Discussion of risks of expanding
the role and power of
the government and transformation
of the U.S. into a
collectivist state
1.
Governments tend to not
have a generally
good record of
carrying for their own
people. Our government
for last 240 years has
been an exception.
2. Our
government has been
neither dictatorial
nor oppressive, we are
mostly free, but since
the inception of the
U.S. we the
People
have been well-armed
with
individually-owned firearms with comparable fire
power to those
possessed by law
enforcement and
other government
agents. To
see that the reason of
the former is the
latter, just look at the governments of the countries where
individual gun
ownership has been
severely restricted of
outright prohibited -
they do not have the
level of individual
freedom (if at all)
that we have.
3. How
long will individual
freedoms survive in an
unarmed society with
the armed-to-teeth government, and
what would be one good
reason for such
survival of the
individual freedoms? Necessity,
anyone?
4. If
we disarm ourselves
and delegate to our
government our right
to self-defense,
granting to it the
monopoly on deadly
force and violence, who then will defend us from our defenders?
Computers? iPhones?
The Internet? Or the
fact that we are
civilized and live in
the modern times?
5.
What would make one
think that the
government will
protect all
individuals from harm,
violence, and loss of
life and property any
better than it
protects the national border?
6.
Governments tend to
not have a generally
good record of honesty
and corruption-free
exercise of their
powers. If you believe
that our government
will never become like
so many other corrupt
governments then
where does
the ever-lasting
honesty of our
government come
from?
7. Our
government cannot even
manage its own budget
(has $20 trillion
debt), so how can one
expect that it will
manage well the
national economy? Or
healthcare?
8.
Advocates of distributive justice (for
instance John Rawls) dispensed
or backed by the
government have failed
to provide working,
sustainable examples
of their theories. It
appears the harder
they try to implement
their ideas the more
poverty and misery
rear their ugly
heads. If their
theories were true we
would have fixed the
wold by now, after 50
years of intensive
trying. So, why would
one dispose of a system
(e.g., modern Western
capitalism in its
American edition, that
some describe as the “most awesome manufacturing machine the world
had ever seen”) that has worked exceptionally
well and replace it
with an unproven and
untested theory of
dubious validity?
After all, we and our
posterity need to
survive in the world
as is (which in its primal state is dangerous and inhospitable to humans), not in an
imaginary Utopian
universe.
9. Where are the
documented successes
of utilitarianism? (Hint:
There are none.)
10.
Where and when did (or
have) socialism
work (or worked) for
the benefit of the
People?
(Hint:Nowhere and
never.)
11.
Which well-established
socialist system did
not turn, eventually,
into oppression? (Hint:None.)
A propos budget for higher ed:
Chapter 2: Privacy
A
memorable quote
from the textbook:
The
man who is
compelled to
live every
minute of his
life among
others and whose
every need,
thought, desire,
fancy, or
gratification is
subject
to public
scrutiny,
has been
deprived of his
individuality
and human
dignity. [He]
merges with the
mass. ... Such a
being, although
sentient, is
fungible; he is not
an individual.
Amendment 4. The right
of the people to
be secure in their
persons, houses,
papers, and
effects, against
unreasonable
searches and
seizures, shall
not be violated,
and no Warrants
shall issue, but
upon probable
cause, supported
by Oath or
affirmation, and
particularly
describing the
place to be
searched, and the
persons or things
to be seized.
"Typically, human beings work well in groups by using their collective strengths to balance out individual weaknesses.
For smart people, being in a group can slow them down.
It can be frustrating to be the only person who seems to grasp the “big
picture,” when everyone else can’t seem to stop squabbling about the
details.
So, intelligent people will often prefer to tackle projects solo, not because they dislike companionship, but because they believe they’ll get the project done more efficiently."
[Comment (M.S.): Thus the research results mentioned above suggest that above-average intelligent individuals need privacy more than anyone else and - therefore - will tend to prefer individualism, unless - off course - indoctrinated otherwise while in school or college,
while below-average intelligent individuals will tend to prefer
collectivism as they don't benefit from privacy as much as they benefit
from collective (group) work. This appears congruent with an
observation that socialism (a form of collectivism) has a record of exploiting highly-productive knowledge workers (usually, having above-average IQ) for the benefit of others (including those with below-average IQ). Which fact does not invalidate the observation that such pattern of exploitation is detrimental to all on a long run.]
Democratic professors
outnumber
Republicans 10
to 1,
study shows
There are several shortcomings associated
with political
uniformity in
higher
education,
Mr. Langbert
continued,
including biased
research
and diminished academic
credibility.
Studies show that academic psychologists
are more
likely to
study the
attitudes and
behaviors of
conservatives
than liberals.
They are also
more likely to
view
conservative
beliefs as deviant.
Sociologists prefer not
to work with fundamentalists,
evangelicals, National Rifle
Association
members and
Republicans,
according to
another study
cited by Mr.
Langbert.
Another study
found that
sociological
research is
not taken
seriously
unless it
presupposes
that there are
no differences
between the
sexes.
[...]
When the military
colleges were
excluded from
the sample, the
overall
imbalance
ballooned to
12.7
Democratic
professors for
every
Republican.
[...]
The
most
politically
balanced field
was engineering
with 1.6
Democrats for
every
Republican.
Computer
science,
economics,
mathematics
and the
natural
sciences
tended to have
ratios below
10 to 1.
The disciplines
with the least
intellectual
diversity were
communications
and anthropology,
both of which
had no
registered
Republicans
[in the
sample].
Fields with
Democrat-to-Republican
ratios greater
than 40 to 1
were art,
sociology,
English
and religion.
Comment (MS): The American people
are the subjects of intense (and often
computer-based) marketing of the
Liberal viewpoints while they are also
being isolated from the reality by
some of those who are supposed to
teach and inform them. The critics of
these viewpoints have seldom had a
chance to present their rationale to a
wide public. Some of the critics who
managed to reach out to millions are
being censored and silenced
by the "mainstream" social media
outlets. Constitutional conservatism
in general, and modern Western
capitalism (not to be confused with:oligarchic capitalism, crony capitalism, or stakeholder capitalism a.k.a. ESG capitalism) in particular, are being falsely
portrayed as "deviant"
ideologies that have "never worked", although these have
been many liberal unproven ideas
that never have worked and often
fall under category of "deviant"
(for instance, the recently popular
among some leading Liberals presumption of guilt of the accused in
political matters - also a prevailing
doctrine of the Left under Stalin's
rule in Soviet Union). And the
majority of the American public is
being insulated from factual and
logical arguments that debunk such a
false portrayal. Once they are
detached from the reality, many do
believe that capitalism is detrimental
to our well-being and those labeled
"Conservative" (recall that the Constitution is
conservative by its very
nature) are "deviant" or "deplorable" - by
the very ideologues who call
themselves "tolerant" and "inclusive"
- while at the
same time accepting some obviously
deviant behaviors and
characteristics as normal or
desirable. Such
characterizations are clearly Orwellian;
they attempt to redefine adjective "deviant"
(and "deplorable")
while keeping its pejorative
connotation. Once these attempts
succeed, the Constitution will not
only be declared as "outdated"
but also as "deviant", and then it may
be safely violated without any risk of
public backlash.
Under these circumstances, does it
surprise you that Marxism and its
offspring flourish among college
students and recent graduates? A
political humor, below, visualizes
"deviant" (deplorable"?) parents who
appear shocked to see their previously
"deviant" kid being transformed in
college onto a normal American (a
Marxist, in this case).
Here
is an excerpt from one of the comments:
[...] how our
culture can accept the notion that our children will be hostage
to a single point of view
for their entire higher education
experience.
According to the latest
survey from
the Victims of
Communism
Memorial
Foundation, a
D.C.-based
nonprofit, one
in two U.S.
millennials
say they would
rather live in
a socialist or
communist
country
than a
capitalist
democracy.
What’s
more, 22% of
them have a
favorable view
of Karl Marx
and a
surprising
number see
Joseph Stalin
and Kim Jong
Un as
“heroes.”
Comment
(MS):
As a group,
those leaning
to the Left
are mainly the
product of the
US public
education
system. They
were exposed
to promotion
of socialism when they were most
persuadable --
in their
formative
years.
It is doubtful
if they have
actual
knowledge of
"accomplishments"
of socialism,
like - for
instance - in
Cuba.
"Millennials could delve into history books to learn
about Socialist atrocities. But they could also
just look at
the facts of
the world and
see
how prosperity
has increased
as the former
socialist
countries have
begun
embracing
capitalism.
If they’d do
either, I
doubt you’d
find many
socialists
among them."
[Links added
by M.S.]
An Explosion in Geofence Warrants Threatens Privacy Across the US
Police around the country have drastically increased their use of geofence warrants, a
widely criticized investigative technique that collects data from any
user's device that was in a specified area within a certain time range,
according to new figures shared by Google. Law enforcement has served
geofence warrants to Google since 2016, but the company has detailed
for the first time exactly how many it receives.
[...]
>Across all 50 states, geofence requests to Google increased from 941 in 2018 to 11,033 in 2020 and now make up more than 25 percent of all data requests the company receives from law enforcement.
A single geofence request could include data from hundreds of bystanders.
In 2019, a single warrant in connection with an arson resulted in
nearly 1,500 device identifiers being sent to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Dozens of civil liberties groups and
privacy advocates have called for banning the technique, arguing it violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, particularly for protesters.
[...]
The fact that geofence results indicate only proximity
to a crime, not whether someone broke the law or is even suspected of
wrongdoing, has also alarmed legal scholars, who worry it could enable government searches of people without real justification.
The new warrant: how US police mine Google for your location and search history
It was a routine bike
ride around the neighborhood that landed Zachary McCoy in the
crosshairs of the Gainesville, Florida, police department.
In January 2020, an alarming email from Google landed
in McCoy’s inbox. Police were requesting his user data, the company
told him, and McCoy had seven days to go to court and block its release.
McCoy later found out the request was part of an
investigation into the burglary of a nearby home the year before. The
evidence that cast him as a suspect was his location during his bike
ride – information the police obtained from Google through what is
called a geofence warrant. For
simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, McCoy was being
investigated and, as a result, his Google data was at risk of being
handed over to the police.
Google Geofence Warrants Endanger Privacy—Judges Now See The Threat
Also known as a reverse location search, such warrants allow police to take a given crime scene and ask Google for data on all smartphones in that place over a given timeframe,
whether that’s information coming from Maps or other Google tools that
track location. In one recent case in Tennessee, for instance, a church
was vandalized and a geofence ordered around the place of worship,
though no information has yet been recovered in that case, according to
the court docket. [...] In others, police have targeted the wrong man, or retrieved data on more than 1,000 phones going through the area, raising concerns about how innocent people can be affected by such warrants.
Natural Hazard? Study
Says Farming
Marijuana
Hurting
Environment
Researchers
from Ithaca College
say that the
growing number
of small pot
farms being
planted in
remote forest
areas are
having a major
impact on the
local
environment.
The New York
team points to
forest
fragmentation,
soil erosion,
and landslides
as the main
side-effects
of inserting
pot farms into
the forest.
DIANE SAWYER SPENDS
ONE YEAR
INVESTIGATING
HOW ISIS
TARGETS
VULNERABLE, YOUNG
AMERICANS ONLINE
For
more than one
year, ABC News
Anchor Diane
Sawyer and a
team of
producers
investigated
how ISIS
targets young
Americans online
and recruits
them to join
ISIS.
Comment (MS): Just like some educators,
ISIS goes after potential recruits when they
are most
persuadable --
in their
formative
years.
Lawmakers
across US move to
include young
people
in voting
"In
California,
where
Democrats
command a
supermajority
in the
Legislature
and control
the governor's
mansion,
lawmakers say
they want to
take the lead
in expanding
voting access
as other
states move to
restrict it.
The bill
to lower the
voting age to
17
proposes an
amendment to
the state
Constitution.
Passage would
require a
two-thirds
vote in the
Legislature
and approval
by voters."
Comment
(MS): The
main point, it
seems, is to
allow as many
youngsters as
possible to
vote before
they have a
chance to
confront what
they have been
taught in
schools
with the reality. When you recall that reportedly 50% of millennials
lean to the
Left (in
California,
most likely,
even more so),
any decrease
of the voting
age must yield
a larger share
of votes for
the ruling
Democratic
Party's
candidates.
Break
away from the
USA?
The effort to
cleave
California
faces its own
split
"Evans
is pushing a
ballot measure
that would put
the question of secession
before voters
in 2018,
believing the
time has never
been so ripe to
form a
breakaway
nation.
Wheeler is
working to
create a
pro-secession
political
party, looking
a dozen or
more years
down the road
when its
candidates
hold office,
and fears that
a premature
vote would
undermine the
effort. "
Comment
(MS): These
initiatives
may need many
really young
voters
to pass.
WikiLeaks Vault 7 Leak
Claims CIA
Bugs ‘Factory
Fresh’ iPhones
"A
new WikiLeaks
Vault 7 leak
titled “Dark
Matter”
claims, with
unreleased
documents,
that the
Central
Intelligence
Agency has
been bugging
“factory
fresh” iPhones
since at least
2008.
WikiLeaks
further claims
that the CIA
has the
capability to
permanently
bug iPhones,
even if their
operating
systems are
deleted or
replaced."
Federal workers turn
to encryption
to thwart
Trump
"Federal
employees worried that
President
Donald Trump
will gut their
agencies are
creating new
email
addresses,
signing up for
encrypted
messaging apps
and looking
for other,
protected ways
to push back
against the
new
administration’s
agenda."
Comment
(MS): This
is an example
of new ruling
class emerging
in the U.S. Unelected
bureaucrats conspiring to
derail actions
of the elected
officials. Remember
the 4th
Branch?
This is how
they flex
their muscle.
The FCC
says it can’t
force Google
and Facebook
to stop
tracking their
users
"The
Federal Communications
Commission
said Friday
that it will
not seek to
impose a
requirement on
Google,
Facebook and
other Internet
companies that
would make it
harder for
them to track
consumers’
online
activities."
Cybersecutiry
vs. the People's
right to privacy
Senate
passes
controversial
cybersecurity
bill Cisa 74
to 21
"The
US Senate
overwhelmingly
passed a
controversial
cybersecurity
bill critics
say will allow
the government
to collect
sensitive
personal data
unchecked,
over the
objections of
civil
liberties
groups and
many of the
biggest names
in the tech
sector."
Google and
Facebook's
record of abuse
Google:
Our new system for
recognizing
faces is the
best one ever
"Last
week, a trio
of Google
researchers
published a
paper on a new
artificial
intelligence
system dubbed
FaceNet that
it claims
represents the
most-accurate
approach yet
to recognizing
human faces.
FaceNet
achieved
nearly
100-percent
accuracy on a
popular
facial-recognition
dataset called
Labeled Faces
in the Wild,
which includes
more than
13,000
pictures of
faces from
across the
web. Trained
on a massive
260-million-image
dataset,
FaceNet
performed with
better than 86
percent
accuracy."
Google controls what we
buy, the news we
read — and Obama’s
policies
"Favors
beget
favors. And hey, presto, the
FTC, in 2012,
ignored the
recommendations of
its own staffers,
which accused
Google of abusive
trade practices
for burying
competitors in their
search results and
recommended a
lawsuit.
"Instead, the FTC
dropped its
inquiry. Google
enjoys 67 percent
market share, 83
percent in mobile.
No biggie, declared
the FTC.
"Google has
the power to bump
an article it
doesn’t like
off the table and
under the rug. Even
moving information
off the first page
of search results
would effectively
neutralize it:
According to a 2013
study, 91.5 percent
of Google search
users click through
on a first-page
result.
Google wants to monitor
your mental health.
You should welcome
it into your mind
"Other
researchers
theorise that a person’s
internet search
history or
even shopping habits
(so handily recorded
by your innocuous
loyalty card) can
identify the first
signs of mental
illness.
Computers can now
tell when something
is about to go
terribly wrong in
someone’s mind."
"Yes,
we now live in a
world where your phone
might observe
you to help assess
your
mental health.
If you don’t find
that prospect
disturbing, you’re
either fantastically
trusting of
companies and
governments or you
haven’t thought
about it enough.
"
"America’s
next
president
could be eased into office
not just by TV ads
or speeches, but by
Google’s secret
decisions, and no
one—except for me
and perhaps a few
other obscure
researchers—would
know how this was
accomplished.
"Research I have been
directing in recent
years suggests that
Google,
Inc., has amassed
far more power to
control
elections—indeed,
to control a wide
variety of opinions
and beliefs—than any
company in history
has ever had.
Google’s search algorithm
can easily shift the
voting
preferences
of undecided
voters by 20
percent or more—up to 80
percent
in some
demographic groups—with
virtually no one knowing they
are being
manipulated,
according to
experiments I
conducted recently
with Ronald E.
Robertson .
"Whether or not Google
executives see it
this way, the
employees who
constantly adjust
the search giant’s
algorithms are
manipulating people
every minute of
every day. The
adjustments they
make increasingly influence
our
thinking—including,
it turns out, our
voting preferences.
"Our
new research leaves
little doubt about
whether Google has
the ability to
control voters.
In laboratory and
online experiments
conducted in the
United States, we
were able to boost
the proportion of
people who favored
any candidate by
between 37 and 63
percent after just
one search session.
The impact of
viewing biased
rankings repeatedly
over a period of
weeks or months
would undoubtedly be
larger.
Google
Likely Shifted
Undecided Voters
in 2018 Election,
Perhaps Millions,
Researcher Says
'Google
may have skewed the
results of the 2018
midterm elections by
millions of votes,
according to
research by
psychologist Robert
Epstein.
Epstein
had about 130 anonymous
“field agents” in
Orange County,
California, and
about 30 more across
the country who had
all their
election-related
Google search
results recorded,
more than 47,000 of
them, including
nearly 400,000 web
pages that the
search results
linked to.
“We
found significant pro-liberal bias on
Google—enough,
quite easily, to
have flipped all
three congressional
districts in Orange
County from
Republican to
Democrat,” Epstein
said in an emailed
statement.'
This
psychologist claims
Google search
results unfairly
steer voters to the
left.
Conservatives love
him
"At
a moment when
misinformation about
search engines and
social media bias is
rampant, with both
the left and the
right amplifying
unsupported claims,
Epstein is asking
the right questions,
they say, about the
unseen power of
algorithms and how
little most
Americans understand
about the way they
work."
[...]
'Google,
he says, is trying to
make judgments
“based on some
measures of what
they consider to be
quality. They have
said this publicly.
They are trying to
judge what is good
and bad.”'
[...]
"But
many analysts say that is
not the point. Even
if Epstein is wrong
about the effects of
Google’s searches,
the real issue, they
say, is how little
people know about
the ways that the
company’s algorithms
manipulate what
users see. Google
engineers design
their algorithms for
a host of reasons —
mostly related to
boosting profits —
and users just
accept the top links
as the most
trustworthy and
authoritative
information on a
topic."
[...]
'Noble
agrees with that
broader point that
Google should not be
guiding crucial
societal questions,
such as how we vote.
“We
use these search engines
as if they are
arbiters of truth,
and they are not,”
she said. “They are
global advertising
platforms. They are
not fact checkers or
public interest
technologies. … The
minute you start to
engage these broader
social issues on a
search engine, you
run up against its
limits.”'
Comment
(M.S.):
Google benefits from
the redistribution
of incomes scheme discussed
in class. Thus
it is not surprising
that it helps to
elect those who are
committed to
maintaining of that scheme.
Google leads
the world in digital
and mobile ad
revenue
"Advertising
is the lifeblood of the
internet. Ahead of
Google’s
second-quarter
[2017] earnings
today, here’s a look
at the state of the
company’s ad revenue
and how it has grown
over the years."
"Google
parent company
Alphabet makes
more money from
digital ads than
any company on the
planet —
it’s expected to
make $73.8
billion dollars in
net digital ad
sales in 2017
after subtracting
for traffic
acquisition costs,
according to
internet research
firm eMarketer.
Google represents 33
percent of the
world’s $223.7
billion in digital
ad revenue this
year."
Leave
Facebook if you don't want to
be spied on, warns
EU
The
European
Commission has warned EU
citizens that they
should close their
Facebook accounts
if they want to
keep information
private
from US security
services, finding
that current Safe
Harbour legislation
does not protect
citizen’s data.
Facebook
accused of tracking
all users even if
they delete
accounts, ask never
to be followed
A
new report claims
that Facebook
secretly installs
tracking
cookies
on users’
computers,
allowing them to
follow users around
the internet even
after they’ve left
the website, deleted
their account and
requested to be no
longer followed.
Alexa has
been eavesdropping
on you this whole
time
Would
you let a stranger
eavesdrop in your
home and keep the
recordings? For most
people, the answer
is, "Are you crazy?"
Yet
that's essentially what
Amazon has been
doing to millions of
us with its
assistant Alexa in
microphone-equipped
Echo speakers. And
it's hardly alone:
Bugging our homes is
Silicon Valley's
next frontier.
A
propos identity
theft ...
IRS chief:
Agency encourages
illegal immigrant
theft of SSNs to
file tax returns
`The IRS is
struggling to
ensure that
illegal immigrants
are able to illegally
use
Social Security
numbers for
legitimate
purposes,
the agency's head
told senators on
Tuesday, without
allowing the numbers
to be used for "bad"
reasons.
IRS Commissioner John
Koskinen made the
statement in
response to a
question from Sen.
Dan Coats, R-Ind.,
during a session of
the Senate Finance
Committee about why
the IRS appears to
be collaborating
with taxpayers who
file tax returns
using fraudulent
information. Coats
said that his staff
had discovered the
practice after
looking into agency
procedures.
"What we learned is that
... the IRS
continues to process
tax returns with
false W-2
information and
issue refunds as if
they were routine
tax returns, and say
that's not really
our job," Coats
said. "We also
learned the IRS
ignores
notifications from
the Social
Security
Administration
that a name does
not match a Social
Security number,
and you use your own
system to determine
whether a number is
valid." '
Global warming or global
pollution?
Shocking
photo shows
Caribbean Sea being
'choked to death by
human waste'
"A
photographer has captured the
damage being done to
the planet's oceans
with a shocking “sea
of plastic and
styrofoam” image
taken near a
tranquil Caribbean
island.
Caroline
Power, who specialises in
underwater
photography, has
dedicated her career
to highlighting the
damage plastic waste
is doing to our
oceans.
She
said witnessing the
plastic blanket of
forks, bottles and
rubbish between the
islands Roatan and
Cayos Cochinos, off
the coast of
Honduras, was
“devastating”."
Comment
(MS): But
the
"inter-governmental"
organizations and
agencies are chasing
"global warming" and
have no time to
tackle some real
problems, like overpopulation and depletion of
the environment
that it causes. It
is easy to declare
CO2 a "pollutant"
and tax those who
are producing it,
but to revert damage
shown on the above
picture is much more
a difficult task
that the said
organizations and
agencies rarely try
to accomplish.
Here
is link to my paper "Earth's Heat Budget"
with a conclusion
that if the current
rate of Earht's
ice melting
continues then it will
take about 72,000
years to melt it
all (it's
an elementary
exercise in high
school physics based
on data readily
available on the
Internet).
California drought
Big
water users, take note:
DWP is considering
outing you
"Although
the Public
Records Act does
not permit water
agencies to
release customer
information on
usage,
there is an exception.
A subsection of
the law requires
disclosure when a
customer "has used
utility services
in a manner
inconsistent with
local utility
usage policies."
It was
under this
subsection of the
law that the East
Bay water agency
released
information on
excessive use
violators,
according to
agency spokeswoman
Abby Figueroa.
The agency
made public the
names of 1,100
violators last
week
after media
outlets requested
the information.
Figueroa said that
this was only a
partial list, and
that more would be
released as the
agency continues
its billing and
meter-reading
process."
Note
(M.S.):
In many cases, law
enforcement
agencies refuse
to release names
of violators in
order to protect
the privacy of
lawbreakers.
Apparently, no such
privacy concerns
apply to some of
those who did
not break the
law.
California
Drought Linked to
Natural Causes, Not
Climate Change
Natural [and predictable]
temperature
swings in the
ocean, not global
warming, are
driving
California's
extreme drought,
according to a new
government study.
Researchers said sea
surface
temperatures in
the equatorial
Pacific Ocean set
up an atmospheric
roadblock
off the West Coast
that diverted winter
storms away from
California. The
state relies on
winter rain and snow
for most of its
yearly water.
The roadblock is a
persistent ridge of
high pressure that
first formed in 2011
during a La Niña [colling
of Pacific water]
event.
The ridge and its
accompanying drought
are opposite
the conditions
that climate
models predict
under global
warming,
lead study author Richard
Seager, a
professor at
Columbia
University's
Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory in New
York, said today
(Dec. 8) during a
news briefing.
Climate models
project low-pressure
systems off the West
Coast, with wetter
winters and drier
springs for central
and northern
California, he said.
"Overall, it's a
shorter, sharper
rainy season,"
Seager said.
Causes and
Predictability of
the 2011-14
California Drought
Assessment Report by
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
December 2014
Composed by the
Narrative Team of the
NOAA Drought Task
Force
Model
simulations
indicate that
human-induced
climate change
increases
California
precipitation in
mid-winter, with a
low-pressure
circulation
anomaly over the
North Pacific, opposite
to conditions of
the last 3
winters.
Sacramento
Utility Warns Water
Wasters Could Be Cut
Off If They Don’t
Cut Back
American
Water
Utility Sacramento may be
forced to restrict
or cut off water
to people who
waste it, saying
if people don’t
start cutting
back, it may have
no choice.
"Too
many people; not
enough
roads,
classrooms,
emergency rooms,
and
drinking
water.
This, in
a
nutshell, is
the problem
facing
public
infrastructure
in many
U.S. communities.
Federal policy
exacerbates
both
sides of
this equation:
U.S. population growth is
increasingly driven
by immigration,
while the share
of the federal
budget devoted to
infrastructure has declined in
favor of means
tested
health and
social programs."
Comment
(MS): Why
are we not
surprised?
Remember this chart?
The above
shortages subtract
substantially from
our national
productivity.
Hours
unproductively
spent in traffic
jams could have
been hours of
extra work or
other productive
activities.
Reliance on public
transportation
restricts
convenience and
scheduling
flexibility, thus
leading to
decreased
productivity.
Overcrowded
classrooms cause
deterioration of
quality of
education.
Inadequate or
defective
infrastructure
increases costs of
doing business.
"If you
put the federal
government in
charge of the
Sahara Desert,
in 5 years
there'd be a
shortage of
sand."
"With
poor education, a budget
deficit, and
crumbling
infrastructure,
Californians
shouldn’t be focused
on idealistic social
programs. "
"Illegal
immigration over the last 30
years, the exodus of
millions of
middle-class
Californians,
and huge wealth
concentrated in the
L.A. basin and
Silicon Valley have
turned the state
into a medieval
manor of knights and
peasants, with ever
fewer in between.
The
strapped middle
class continues to
flee bad
schools, high
taxes, rampant
crime, and poor
state services.
About one-third of
the nation’s welfare
recipients reside in
California.
Approximately one-fifth
of the state lives
below the poverty
line. More
than a quarter of
Californians were
not born in the
United States."
"The
skeletons of half-built
bridges and
overpasses for a
$100 billion
high-speed-rail
dinosaur remind
residents of the
ongoing boondoggle.
Meantime, outdated
roads and highways
— mostly unchanged
from the 1960s
— make driving for
40 million both slow
and dangerous. Each
mile of track for
high-speed rail
represents millions
of dollars that were
not spent on
repairing and
expanding stretches
of the state’s
decrepit freeways —
and hundreds of
lives needlessly
lost each year."
Comment
(MS): Diverting
funds from
highways to
public
transportation
is like replacing
the Internet (and
cloud computing
that comes with
it) with
mainframes (and
centralized batch
computing of 1960s
and 1970s). It is
an atavistic
(backward) trend.
It leads to decreased
productivity.
Ranking of CA by
US News &
World Report
(ca. 2018,
the link below is
current and reports
different
indicators)
Comment
(MS): If
the CA highway
system is like the
Internet then the high-speed
rail is like a
mainframe computer.
These were
ideas popular in
1960s. But
some call it
progress (in 2017).
California secessionists think
their path to
independence is
easier than
Catalonia’s
"The
California Freedom Coalition,
the campaign that
has taken the lead
in the effort to
break California off
from the United
States, sees
similarities with
Catalonia’s
secessionist
movement. But
there’s an important
caveat: they believe
California has more
legal tools at its
disposal, creating
an easier path to
secession – if
that’s what
Californians decide
they want."
"Even
as
Washington
gets
heat
for
snooping
on ordinary
Americans and
warning them that they 'have no
reasonable expectation
of privacy' on
Healthcare.gov, federal
officials are
increasingly using the 'personal
privacy'
exemption in the law to
shield their
employees from
scrutiny,
according to open
government advocates.
Comment (MS):
The already unaccountable4th Branch defends
itself against public
scrutiny.
"Armed
with new technologies, including
mobile devices that tap into
cellphone data in real time,
dozens of local and state police
agencies are capturing
information about thousands of
cellphone users at a
time, whether they are
targets of an investigation or
not, according to
public records obtained by USA
TODAY and Gannett newspapers and
TV stations.
"Organizations such as the
American Civil Liberties Union
and Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) say
the swelling ability by even
small-town police departments to
easily and quickly obtain large
amounts of cellphone data raises
questions about the erosion of
people's privacy as well as
their Fourth Amendment
protections against
unreasonable search and
seizure.
"In most states, police can
get many kinds of cellphone data
without obtaining a
warrant, which they'd
need to search someone's house
or car.
Forget X-rays, now
you can see through
walls using WI-FI:
Device captures
silhouettes and can
even identify people
when they're stood
behind CONCRETE
"Using
a
wireless
transmitter fitted behind a
wall, computer
scientists have
developed a device
that can map a
nearby room in 3D
while scanning for
human bodies.
Using the signals that
bounce and reflect
off these people,
the device creates
an accurate
silhouette and can
even use this
silhouette to
identify who that
person is."
Comment (MS): Remember the
"expectation of privacy"?
Invention of the above kind do
have legal impact on our Constitutionally-protected
rights. They narrow and weaken
these protections, even in
purely legal sense.
"Americans
may insist on the right to pursue
happiness, but
Venezuela now has a formal
government agency in charge of
enforcing it.
"President Nicolas Maduro
says the new Vice
Ministry of Supreme Social
Happiness will
coordinate all the "mission"
programs created by the late
President Hugo Chavez to alleviate poverty.
"Oil-rich Venezuela is
chronically short of basic
goods and medical supplies.
Annual inflation
is running officially at near 50 percent
[...].
"Maduro blames the shortages
on speculation and hoarding
[...].
"Maduro was elected April 14
as [President] Chavez's chosen
successor.
Comment
MS: There is a Ministry
of Love at the oppressive and
intrusive government ("Big
Brother") in Orwell's novel
"1984". It appears that the Venezuela model of socialism
borrowed some ideas form
"1984".
Privacy protection
Mozilla's Lightbeam tool will expose who
is looking over your shoulder on
the web
"Users
who activate Lightbeam will be able
to see a real-time visualization
of every site they visit and
every third-party that is active
on those sites, including
commercial organizations which
might potentially be sharing
your data.
Comment MS: You may also try Startpage private search engine:
"A partnership between
police departments and social
media sites discussed
at a convention in Philadelphia
this week could allow law
enforcement to keep anything
deemed criminal off the
Internet—and even stop people from
organizing protests.
Police deploy tracking devices from
front-mounted 'cannon'
"The
secret weapon is mounted in the grill
of an Iowa State Patrol cruiser.
When the trooper hits a button
in the car or on a key fob, the
suspect's car is tagged by the
Star Chase system [that shoots
and attaches a tiny GPS device
to the car].
"Then,
law enforcement can make a more
subdued pursuit, tracking and
eventually capturing the
suspect.
A black box in your car? Some
see a source of tax revenue
"The
devices, which track every mile a
motorist drives and transmit
that information to
bureaucrats, are at the
center of a controversial
attempt in Washington and state
planning offices to overhaul the
outdated system
for funding America's major
roads.
"Concerns about Big Brother and
those sorts of things were a
major problem," said Alauddin
Khan, who directs strategic and
performance management at the
Nevada Department of
Transportation. "It was not
something people wanted."
"At the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission in the
San Francisco Bay Area,
officials say Congress could
very simply deal with the bankrupt Highway Trust
Fund by raising gas
taxes.
"People will be more
willing to do this if you do
not track their speed and you
do not track their location," said Ryan Morrison, chief
executive of True Mileage [a
small California startup
company].
The
data,
released by House Judiciary
Committee Chairman
Robert W. Goodlatte at
the beginning of a
hearing with U.S.
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Director
Sarah Saldana, also
showed that the 30,558
criminal aliens ICE
knowingly released
back into the
community in 2014 had
amassed nearly 80,000
convictions, including
250 homicides,
186 kidnappings and
373 sexual assaults.
Comment (MS):
And when some of these
released criminals
hurt innocent
Americans then some of
our elected
officials are
quick to call for
furhter restrictions
of our individual
liberties (mostly, 2nd
and 4th Amendment
rights), ostensibly,
for our protection.
Drones and privacy ...
Watch This
Homeowner Shoot Down a
Drone Flying over His
Property
Larry
Breaux
of Valencia, California, is
the homeowner who shot
down the drone. He told
INSIDE EDITION he
believes the drone was
sent over his house in
a deliberate act of
harassment.
He
told INSIDE EDITION, "I
get an anonymous phone
call on my answering
machine, 'Hey, get rid
of your eyesore sign or
you won't have
any privacy.'"
Chapter 2 slides in PDF (modified by MS) and in PowerPoint
- It's a copyrighted material,
so the students
in this class
can read them
but not
to copy or
distribute
them.
Notes for Chapter 2
Quick links by
topic in the order they
were covered in class:
"The law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service has been quietly running a program that tracks and collects Americans’ social media posts, including those about planned protests, according to a document obtained by Yahoo News.
The details of the surveillance effort, known as iCOP, or Internet Covert Operations Program,
have not previously been made public. The work involves having analysts
trawl through social media sites to look for what the document
describes as “inflammatory” postings and then sharing that information
across government agencies."
SPYING MAILMAN US Postal Service is ‘running secret program called iCOP to SPY on Americans’ social media posts’
'FBI Director James
Comey warned
Wednesday that
Americans should not
have
expectations
of "absolute
privacy,"
adding that he
planned to
finish his
term leading
the FBI.
"There is no such
thing as
absolute
privacy in
America; there
is no place
outside of
judicial reach,"
Comey said at a
Boston College
conference on
cybersecurity.
He made the
remark as he
discussed the
rise of
encryption
since 2013
disclosures by
former
National
Security
Agency
contractor
Edward Snowden
revealed
sensitive US
spy practices.
"Even our communications with our
spouses, with
our clergy
members, with
our attorneys
are not
absolutely
private
in America,"
Comey added.
"In
appropriate
circumstances,
a judge can
compel any one
of us to
testify in
court about
those very
private
communications."
But, he also said
Americans
"have a
reasonable
expectation of
privacy in our
homes, in our
cars, in our
devices. "It is a vital
part of being
an American.
The government cannot invade
our privacy
without good
reason,
reviewable in
court," Comey
continued.'
Comment
(MS):
Well. it is
supposed to be
the other way
around. The
government was
supposed to
have a court
order (search warrant)
before
invading our
privacy and
not the other
way around.
Mr. Commey
cleverly
shifted the
burden of
proof from the
government
(that there is
a good reason
for the
invasion of
privacy) to
the affected
individual
(that there
was no good
reason for the
invasion of
privacy). Note
that once it
is determined
that an
individual
should not
expect
privacy,
he/she -
according to
the courts -
has no right
to privacy.
A
reference to an earlier
comment:
Court: No right to
resist illegal cop entry
into home
"[Chancellor
of Germany,] Angela
Merkel, who grew up in the
GDR [German
Democratic Republic,
a.k.a. East Germany], has
said a government headed
by the Left Party would be
"bad news" for Thuringia."
"Of course the GDR was a rogue
state," Mrs Merkel has
commented. "A Stasi state
has repeatedly trampled
human freedom underfoot.
What should we call such a
state?"
Comment by M.S.
Do (some) Germans have a natural
propensity to socialism?
A
year ago ...
Expectation
of privacy?
Court
OKs warrantless use of
hidden surveillance cameras
"Police are
allowed in
some circumstances to install
hidden surveillance
cameras on private
property without
obtaining a search
warrant, a
federal judge said
yesterday.
Current issues (well, a year
ago)...
Violation of privacy by police
Man Seeks Millions After
N.M. Police Force
Colonoscopy in Drug Search
"Police forced
New Mexico scrap metal
tradesman David Eckert to
undergo two digital
anal probes, three enema
insertions and
ultimately a colonoscopy
after officers incorrectly assumed he was
concealing drugs,
according to a lawsuit
filed in U.S. District
Court on his behalf.
"[...] [O]ne
police officer said he
asked Eckert for
permission to physically
search him after the
minor traffic stop.
[...] Eckert refused
[...].
"A
judge granted the
search warrant for
the anal cavity
probe, but
not necessarily a
colonoscopy.
"Officers then transported
Eckert to the Gila
Regional Medical
Center after an
emergency room doctor
at a Deming, N.M.,
hospital told them
"this is unethical,"
Kennedy said.
"After arriving at the Gila
facility, doctors
examined Eckert's
anal cavity twice
with their fingers,
put him through an
x-ray scan and then inserted
three rounds of
enemas into his anus.
After each enema,
doctors examined the
stool sample produced.
Eckert was then given
a second x-ray scan
and forced to
undergo a
colonoscopy with
anesthesia.
"Eckert was
sent a $6,000 bill for
the medical procedures
he involuntarily
underwent, his lawyer
says.
Comment
(by M.S.): Could
high-volume drug
smuggling in NM ,
facilitated by a
lack of adequate
border
enforcement, be a
reason of
weakening of
privacy rights?
A
propos PGP (Pretty
Good Privacy)
NSA-proof encryption exists. Why doesn’t
anyone use it?
A
more recent incident
in December 2006
(see In re Boucher),
involving US customs
agents who seized a
laptop PC that
allegedly contained
child pornography,
indicates that US
government agencies
find it "nearly
impossible" to
access PGP-encrypted
files. Additionally,
a magistrate judge
ruling on the case
in November 2007 has
stated that forcing
the suspect to
reveal his PGP
passphrase would
violate his Fifth
Amendment
rights i.e.
a suspect's
constitutional right
not to incriminate
himself. The Fifth
Amendment issue was
opened again as the
government appealed
the case and a federal
district judge
ordered the
defendant to
provide the key.
[Comment (by M.S.):
It appears that some
IRS employees enjoy
more privacy rights
than ordinary
citizens, although
the former have been
vested with powers,
and (allegedly)
abused them, that
the latter have
not.]
Evidence
suggests that as of 2007,
British police
investigators are
unable to break PGP,
so instead have
resorted to using
RIPA legislation to
demand the
passwords/keys. In
November 2009 a
British citizen was
convicted under RIPA
legislation and jailed
for nine months
for refusing to
provide police
investigators with
encryption keys to
PGP-encrypted
files.
Comment by
M.S.Proliferation of borderless
Internet has
led to imposition of
governmental
restrictions on
privacy protections
within the U.S. For
example, the
(attempted)
exportation
restrictions on
encryption software
and the necessity of
surveillance of
foreign enemies has thrown the American
people into the same
category of suspects
with limited or no expectation of
privacy as
everybody else.
"Technology companies are
scrambling to fix
a major
security flaw
that for more
than a decade
left users of
Apple and Google
devices vulnerable to hacking when
they visited
millions of
supposedly secure
Web sites,
including Whitehouse.gov,
NSA.gov and FBI.gov.
The flaw
resulted from a
former U.S.
government
policy
that forbade
the export of
strong
encryption
and required that
weaker
“export-grade”
products be
shipped to
customers in other
countries, say the
researchers who
discovered the
problem."
"The
problem
illuminates the danger
of unintended
security
consequences
at a time when top U.S.
officials,
frustrated by
increasingly
strong forms of
encryption on
smartphones, have
called
for technology
companies to
provide “doors”
into systems
to protect the
ability of law
enforcement and
intelligence
agencies to
conduct
surveillance."
Comment
(M.S.) So, in
order to
facilitate
government
surveilance, the
unsuspecting
customers were
left vulnerable
to hacking. This
seems like a
good example
of what can
happen if one
delegates
protection of
one's privacy
to the
government.
Justice Depart. withdraws legal action
against Apple over
San Bernardino
iPhone
"The
Justice Department
withdrew its legal
action against
Apple, Monday,
confirming that an
outside method to
bypass
the locking
function
of a San
Bernardino
terrorist’s phone
has
proved
successful.
"The
method brought to
the FBI earlier
this month by an
unidentified
entity allows
investigators to
crack the security
function without
erasing contents
of the iPhone used
by Syed Farook,
who with his wife,
Tashfeen Malik,
carried out the
December mass
shooting that left
14 dead.
A
propos computer
threat ...
Rise of the
machines
Computers could achieve
superhuman levels of
intelligence in this
century. Could they
pose a threat to
humanity?
Comment
(by M.S.) Not
really
(it's a
looooooooong
shot). But the
control freaks
that use them
could.
The articles like
that accomplish
one effect:
misdirect people's
vigilance towards
imaginary threats
so that the real
threats may sneak
under the people's
radar and
materialize, one
day. After all, machines,
unlike humans who use
them, have no
free will.
"Forget
wearable tech. The
pioneers of our
“post-human”
future are implanting
technology in to their
bodies and
brains.
Should we stop
them or join
them?"
Nine real technologies
that will soon be
inside you
They raise
privacy
issues
and even point to
a larger potential
dystopia.
This
technology could
be used to ID
every single human
being, for
example.
Already,
the US military
has serious
programs afoot to
equip soldiers
with implanted
RFID chips, so
keeping track of
troops becomes
automatic and
worldwide.
Many
social critics
believe the
expansion of this
kind of ID is
inevitable.
Some see
it as a positive:
improved crime
fighting,
universal secure
elections, a
positive
revolution in
medical
information and
response, and
never a lost child
again.
Others see
the perfect Orwellian
society: a Big
Brother
who, knowing all
and seeing all,
can control all."
"Enrique
Monroy-Bracamonte had a lot to hide.
He was living in the
United States
illegally, had been
convicted in Arizona
for selling drugs
and twice
deported to
Mexico.
"His
background would have almost
certainly flagged
him to be expelled
from the country
again, but he stayed
under the radar
until his arrest
Friday on suspicion
of murder,
attempted murder
and carjacking in
the deaths of two
sheriff's deputies
during a shooting
rampage
in Northern
California.
Comment M.S.:
Since after each
"shooting rampage",
many politicians call
for further
restrictions on
people's 2nd Amendment
rights, the above
illustrates how a lack of
adequate border
enforcement
contributes to the erosion of
individual
liberties in the
U.S.
A propos IRS
...
Law Lets I.R.S.
Seize Accounts on
Suspicion, No Crime
Required
"The Internal
Revenue Service
agents did not
accuse Ms. Hinders
of money laundering
or cheating on her
taxes — in
fact, she has not been
charged with any
crime. Instead, the money
was seized solely
because she had
deposited less than
$10,000 at a time,
which they viewed as
an attempt to avoid
triggering a required
government report.
"Using a law designed to
catch drug
traffickers,
racketeers and
terrorists by tracking
their cash, the
government has gone
after run-of-the-mill
business owners and
wage earners without
so much as an
allegation that they
have committed serious
crimes. The
government can take
the money without
ever filing a
criminal complaint,
and the owners are
left to prove they
are innocent.
"[...] Ms. Hinders, 67, who
has borrowed money,
strained her credit
cards and taken out a
second mortgage to
keep her restaurant
going.
"Their money was seized under
an increasingly
controversial area of
law known as civil
asset forfeiture,
which allows law
enforcement agents to
take property they
suspect of being tied
to crime even if no
criminal charges are
filed. Law
enforcement agencies
get to keep a share
of whatever is
forfeited.
"In
one Long Island case,
the police submitted
almost a year’s worth
of daily deposits by a
business, ranging from
$5,550 to $9,910. The
officer wrote in his
warrant affidavit that
based on his training
and experience, the
pattern “is consistent
with structuring.” The
government seized
$447,000 from the
business, a
cash-intensive candy
and cigarette
distributor that has
been run by one
family for 27 years.
Comment
(MS): One
of the reasons why
our government
seems to be
getting worse and
worse is the size
of its 4th Branch (2
million+ and
growing).
"Robin Hood
robbed the rich to
give to the poor.
Although most people
are critical of Robin
Hood’s actions,
relatively few
question the
legitimacy of governmental coercion to
redistribute income.
"But
how could it possibly be
rational to confiscate
property without asking
whether people are entitled
to own it, or to regard
poverty as unjust without
inquiring why some are, and
some are not, poor?"
Comment
(M.S.) Ideology
attempts to "correct"
human nature so
that we don't ask
inconveninet questions
like the one above that
Professor Kekes has
asked.
"Colorado
Representative Ken Buck, a founding
member of the Freedom
Caucus, tells all in
his book Drain the
Swamp (Regnery
Publishing). He
describes the price of
committee
chairmanship,
pay-to-play
corruption, and lavish
parties on both side
of the aisle. Going
against the widely
held notion that
political gridlock has
rendered Congress
incapable of getting
things done, Buck argues
that the Democrats
and Republicans
actually work too
well together,
fleecing the average
citizen in the
process."
Comment (MS):
Remember the
controversy
regarding the Laffer curve? It
appears that the
main disagreement
between the two
political parties
regarding taxation is
what is the most
effective way to
maximize Federal tax
revenue. Democrats
suggest that by
(gradually)
increasing the tax
rates, while
Republicans suggest
that by finding the
maximum of the Laffer curve. I tried
to find where does
it state in the
Constitution that
the purpose of our
work is to maximize
the Federal tax
revenue, but I could
not find it there.
All I could find in
this respect was the
necessary-and-proper
clause that seems to
suggest that the
government will seek
minimum
levels of taxation
that is neccessary
and proper to
carrying on its
powers rather than
go after the maximization
of the tax revenue.
The latter could
have been
appropriate if we
were government's livestock,
which I propose we
are not.
Maximization of the
tax revenue seems to
borrow from utilitarianism
(maximization of
collective
happiness), and has
appearances of a
tendency towards a dictatorship of utility.
Section
2.2 "Big Brother Is Watching
You"
The
George Orwell's
classic novel "1984"
(written in 1948,
published in 1949)
that the textbook
refers to is a highly
recommended,
although disturbing,
reading.
It
describes future
collectivist,
competition-less
society (IngSoc
- an abbreviation
for English
Socialism)
deprived of its
individual liberties
(no privacy, no free
speech, not even
free thought,
obligation to work
for rationed food
and other
necessities, no
rewards for
overachievers and
the highly
productive, no
incentives for
invention and
improvement, equal
misery for all but
the ruling class)
and controlled by an
all-intrusive
government, equipped
with powerful
information
manipulation
technology,
that seized
dictatorial power in
order to better
promote common
welfare and
collective
happiness.
"Who controls the
past controls the
future.
Who
controls the present controls the past".
Some of
its branches were:
the Ministry of Truth
(responsible for propaganda,
censorship,
and constant
surveillance of
all its citizens
via two-way TV
telling them
all: "Big Brother
Is Watching You"), the Ministry of
Peace (responsible
for continuation of
perpetual war), the
Ministry of Love
(remember the Vice Ministry of
Supreme Social
Happiness?),
(responsible for law
enforcement,
prisons, and
interior security),
and the Ministry
of Plenty
(responsible for food
rationing).
QUOTE: "The Ministry
of Love was
the really
frightening one.
There were no
windows in it at
all. [....] It was a
place impossible to
enter except on
official business,
and then only by
penetrating through
a maze of barbed-wire
entanglements, steel
doors, and
hidden machine-gun nests. Even
the streets leading
up to its outer
barriers were roamed
by gorilla-faced guards in
black uniforms,
armed with jointed
truncheons. "
Although
Orwell considered
his novel a satire,
his "humorous"
predictions fell surprisingly close to the
implementation of
socialism in
Soviet Union,
and in Eastern
Europe after the
WWII. His remarkable
intuition on how future
computer
technology
could be used in
order to submit
the individuals to
the society and
its ruling clique
was surprisingly
accurate.
That
possibilty, and not
any "robot takeover", is
the real
treat that our
society is facing
these days.
Excerpts
from “1984” (for
education purposes
only - not to be
copied or
downloaded; see the
"fair use" exception
referenced above) “As
short a time ago as
February, the Ministry
of Plenty
had issued a promise
(a 'categorical
pledge' were the
official words) that
there would be no
reduction of the
chocolate ration
during 1984. It
appeared that there
had even been demonstrations
to
thank
Big
Brother for raising
the chocolate
ration to twenty
grammes a week.
And only yesterday,
he reflected, it had
been announced that
the ration was
to be reduced
to twenty grammes
a week [from 30
grammes a week].
The
announcement from
the Ministry of
Plenty ended on
another trumpet call
and gave way to
tinny music.
Parsons, stirred to
vague enthusiasm by
the bombardment of
figures, took his
pipe out of his
mouth. 'The Ministry
of Plenty's
certainly done a good job
this year,'
he said with a
knowing shake of his
head. 'By the
way, Smith old
boy, I suppose you
haven't got any razor blades
you can let me
have?' 'Not
one,' said Winston. 'I've been
using the same
blade for six
weeks myself.'
“
In
today's English
adjective "Orwellian" in a
context that
refers to language
may mean (among
other things):
"intentionally deceptive"
(for instance, California "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act" of 2014
downgraded thefts under $950 to misdemeanors and removed jail as a
punishment for nonfelonies - click here for a report of new crime wave in CA attributed to that Act),
"attempting to
redefine the
meaning of common
language (e.g.,
redefining the
meaning of "progress", "deviant", etc.) in order
to:
confuse
one's
opponents,
hide
the truth
(usually, behind
euphemisms,
like in Mao Zedong was an
"agrarian
reformer"
that hides the
fact that he was
responsible for
deaths of tens
of millions of
his people),
or
make
it impossible
to express
dissenting
(a.k.a.
'politically
incorrect')
ideas (see
quote
below),
or "attempting to change the
reality with
language", for instance,
Although Orwell clearly
attributed the
above misuses of
language to the
ideology of IngSoc
(an acronym for
English Socialism),
many advocates and
sympathizers of
collectivism (in
particular,
socialism) have
tried to hide
the origin of
such misuse and
to blame it on
... those
opposed to
collectivism (in
particular, on
those opposed to
socialism). This
kind of
political
deception gave
rise to yet
another modern
meaning of
adjective "Orwellian":
attempting to summarily
shift the
blame for
Orwellian
misuses of the
language
from the
actual
perpetrators
(usually, the
ideologues of
collectivism)
to their
targeted
political
opponents.
The
above modern
meaning of
"Orwellian"
also falls
under the
category of
(psychological)
projection, and
- as such - is
an instance of
moralistic fallacy.
QUOTE:
"Don't you see that the
whole aim of
Newspeak is to narrow
the range of
thought?
In the end we
shall make thoughtcrime
literally
impossible,
because there
will be no words
in which to
express it"
Orwell followed up his
vision of endless
possibilities of
elimination of dissenting thought
(which he called thoughtcrime
or crimethink)
in the Appendix to
his "1984":
Newspeak was a
language of groupthink
(which term was
coined after
Orwell passed
away).
Here are some
excerpts (see the
"fair
use"
exception above):
"Newspeak
was the official language of Oceania and had
been devised to meet the ideological
needs of IngSoc, or English
Socialism."
[Comment (M.S.):
From a perspective of 2020, Newspeak and its absurdly restrictive and
deceptive semantics that allowed for covering-up of self-contradictions
of the ideology of English Socialism can be viewed as Orwell's
prediction of postmodernism. In particular, his invention of doublethink that was "the act of holding, simultaneously, two opposite, individually
exclusive ideas or opinions and believing in both simultaneously and
absolutely"
is surprisingly similar to postmodernism's rejection of rationality and
objective truth with the purpose of allowing to cover-up
self-contradictions of Marxist ideology of socialism.]
"The purpose of
Newspeak was not
only to provide a
medium of expression
for the world-view
and mental habits
proper to the
devotees of IngSoc,
but to make all
other modes of
thought impossible.
It was intended that
when Newspeak had
been adopted once
and for all and
Oldspeak forgotten, a
heretical thought
-- that is, a
thought diverging
from the
principles of
IngSoc -- should
be literally
unthinkable
[...].
"Take for
example the
well-known passage
from the Declaration
of Independence:
"We hold these
truths to be
self-evident, that
all men are
created equal,
that they are
endowed by their
creator with
certain
inalienable
rights, that among
these are life,
liberty, and the
pursuit of
happiness. That to
secure these
rights,
Governments are
instituted among
men, deriving
their powers from
the consent of the
governed. That
whenever any form
of Government
becomes
destructive of
those ends, it is
the right of the
People to alter or
abolish it, and to
institute new
Government. . .
"It would have been
quite impossible to
render this into
Newspeak while
keeping to the sense
of the original. The
nearest one could
come to doing so
would be to
swallow the whole
passage up in the
single word crimethink.
North Korea
has cut food rations to less than 11 ounces a
day, the lowest ever for this time of year,
and further cuts are likely after suffering
the worst harvest in a decade, the United
Nations said on Friday.
Harvard professors are taking a stand for free speech.
More than 100 of the school's faculty members have joined the new Council on Academic Freedom, banding together to protect free speech on the Ivy League campus.
"We are in a crisis time right now," Janet Halley, a Harvard Law School professor and feminist legal theory scholar, told The Post. "Many, many people are being threatened with — and actually put through — disciplinary processes for their exercise of free speech and academic freedom."
[...]
Harvard law professor Janet Halley says free speech is in crisis on American campuses.
[...]
Jeffrey Flier says academic freedom has eroded over his decades-long career at Harvard.
[...]
Philosophy professor Ned Hall believes most Harvard students want to see free speech restored.
[...]
Harvard history professor Jane Kamensky believes that students need to be better educated about the value of free speech.
UC
Berkeley Gears Up For
Violent Protests
Over Coulter
Speech
Cancellation
"BERKELEY
(CBS SF) —
Following the
cancellation of
the Ann Coulter
speech at
University of
California,
Berkeley,
far-right
supporters plan to
hold a rally
Thursday to
denounce what they
claim is the
attempted
silencing of their
conservative
views, stoking
fears of another
violent encounter
with far-left
groups. UC Police
said it was
preparing for
violence Thursday
between militant
factions on both
sides, even as the
speech by the conservative
firebrand
Coulter was
canceled over fears of
violence."
Comment (MS):
See a pattern
here?
ACLU Defends Ann
Coulter:
'A Loss For The
1st Amendment'
"The
American Civil
Liberties Union
defended Ann
Coulter's right to
speak at the
University of
California-Berkeley,
The Hill reported. The ACLU
said the "heckler's veto" is
a shameful way to
deprive someone of
their First
Amendment rights."
A
propos a claim that
Fox News misinforms
its viewers ...
"A protest
at UC Berkeley
over a scheduled
appearance by
right-wing
provocateur Milo
Yiannopoulos
turned fiery and
violent Wednesday
night, prompting
police to cancel
the event and
hustle the
Breitbart News
editor off campus. But even
after the event’s
cancellation,
hundreds of
protesters spilled
off campus into
the city streets,
where the
violence
continued as
they confronted
drivers, engaged
in fights,
smashed
storefront
windows and set
fires. Protesters
decried President
Trump’s policies
as much as they
did the visit by
Yiannopoulos, a
gay conservative
who has been
making the rounds
at college
campuses across
the country with
his “Dangerous Faggot”
talks,
specializing in
remarks meant to insult,
offend and
disgust liberals
who disagree
with his ideas."
Comment (MS):
So, the rioting
individuals
resorted to
burning and
property damaging
in their exercise
of freedom of
speech in order to
silence the
speaker whose
words (and not
actions) they
considered
dangerous for the
cause of
Liberalism.
Apparently, they
did not think of
themselves as
dangerous.
'Leftist
Fight Club' trains UCF
students to
fight
Republicans
The “Knights
for Socialism”
group at the
University of
Central
Florida (UCF)
held a
workshop
Sunday to
teach
left-wing
students how
to “BASH THE
FASH” with a “Leftist
Fight Club”
open
to everyone
but
Republicans.
Comment
(MS):
Here, socialists
are fighting
national
socialists (or -
as they claim -
fascists, a.k.a.
neo-socialists).
It looks a bit as
if Bloods (a
violent gang in
L.A.) were
fighting Crips
(another violent
gang in L.A.). It
doesn't make them
that different
from one another,
does it?
The above could be an
illustration to the book under provocative
title "Liberal
Fascism".
"On the
night of May 10,
1933, an event
unseen in Europe
since the Middle
Ages occurred as
German students
from
universities
once regarded as
among the finest
in the world,
gathered in Berlin
to burn
books
with "unGerman"
ideas."
Comment (MS):
The students
considered those
books "dangerous"
for the cause of National Socialism,
so they resorted
to burning them.
Somehow, different
kinds of socialism
lead to similar
pathologies.
Interestingly,
some California
lawmakers are
trying impose
limitations on freedom of
speech under
the pretense of
alleged harm that
unrestricted free
speech is likely
to cause to the
People.
"In
responding to the
professors, the
chancellor’s
office pointed out
— correctly and
courageously —
that “the courts
have made it
very clear
that there is no
general
exception to
1st Amendment
protection for
‘hate’ speech
or speech that
is deemed to be
discriminatory.
Our Constitution
does not permit
the university
to engage in
prior restraint
of a speaker out
of fear that he
might engage in
even hateful
verbal attacks.”" [...] "Yet it’s
also true that, on
colleges campuses
and elsewhere,
some “progressive”
voices do call for
the stifling of
speech they don’t
approve of. A
leaflet
circulated at
the Berkeley
protest said
Yiannopoulos has
“no right to
speak at Cal or
anywhere else”
because he’s a
“tool of Trump’s
possessive
fascist
government." This is
just the
latest variation
on the age-old
argument of the
censor
that “error has no
rights,” or, put
another way, that
one only has a
right to free
speech if one is
speaking the
“truth.” It’s an
insidious notion
that needs to be
opposed in every
generation."
Americans'
Trust in Media Remains
at Historical Low
To take one example,
the University of
Michigan — one of
the nation’s most
prestigious public
universities – in
one policy condemns
“bias-related
incidents” such as “making fun”
of a “person’s
accent” or “insulting
. . . someone’s
traditional manner
of dress or
geographic origin.”
Yet the
university then
declares,
in an entirely
different policy: “Expression
of diverse points
of view is of the
highest importance,
not only for those
who espouse a cause
or position and then
defend it, but also
for those who hear
and pass judgment on
that defense. The belief
that an opinion is
pernicious, false,
or in any other
way detestable
cannot be grounds
for its
suppression.”
Young
America’s
Foundation
— working with the
polling company,
inc./WomanTrend —
surveyed 1,000
college students
about their
attitudes toward
free speech and
political
correctness. The
findings? Students
support free
speech, until
speech gets
politically
incorrect.
Comment
(MS):
According to OC
Register article
(in slides for
Chap. 2, Privacy),
the purpose of
restrictions of
free speech at
American
universities is to
“insulate[...]
left-leaning
students,
hindering their
ability to
critically analyze
their own ideas.”
This
is the incubator tactics
that ensures that
the overwhelming
Liberal bias of
the faculty
results in steady
supply of
graduates that are
fundamentally
committed to the
Liberal ideology.
Nastiness threatens online
reader comments
[It should read: "Censorship
via the chilling effect
threatens online
freedom of speech"]
"One tool
is from
Facebook,
whose plug-in verifies
the identity of
those who post
comments,
requiring people to
use their real
names.
Some
evidence
indicates the Facebook
platform and other
tools have helped
the tone.
A
2013 University of
Kent study found
that by making users
"accountable," the
Facebook system
makes them "less likely
to engage in
uncivil discussion."
But
when
The Huffington Post
ended anonymous
comments and began
using the Facebook
plug-in, it sparked
anger.
By
creating
obstacles
to posting, "you lose a
lot of commenters,"
said David Wolfgang,
a doctoral
researcher in
journalism at the
University of
Missouri."
"- Tech
solutions?
-
Large
news
organizations employ teams of
moderators,
sometimes with help
from outside
contractors, to weed out
inappropriate
comments.
But that's not
feasible for many
budget-stretched
newsrooms.
Some
are
looking
to technology, to
filter out nastiness
and highlight
constructive
conversations from
readers. Several
private vendors
offer software for
this.
The Washington
Post and New York
Times have
joined forces on a
project funded by
the Knight
Foundation to create
open-source
software
that can be adapted
for news websites to get a
better handle on
online discussions."
Free speech and gun
control controversy
...
Michael
Moore: 'Guns Don't
Kill People,
Americans Kill
People'
World
homicide rate is 9.63 per 100,000 person. U.S.
is ranked #1 in
private gun
ownership (est. 101 firearms per 100
person) but
has a relatively low
homicide rate of
5.22 homicides a
year per 100,000
person.
U.S. has about 5.06
homicides a year
per 100,000
privately owned
firearms.
Here is a graph of
recent trends in gun
ownership and
homicide rates in
the U.S. (source: Christian Science Monitor)
"Of the 86 countries where we have
identified mass public shootings, the US
ranks 56th per capita in its rate of
attacks and 61st in mass public shooting
murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland
and Russia all have at least 45 percent
higher rates of murder from mass public
shootings than the United States."
Canada
is ranked #13 in
private gun
ownership (est. 24 firearms per 100
person) but
has a very low
homicide rate of
1.67 homicides a
year per 100,000
person
Canada has about 6.96
homicides a year
per 100,000
privately owned
firearms.
Mexico
is ranked #42 in
private gun
ownership (est. 15 firearms per 100
person) but
has above
world-average
homicide rate of
11.59 homicides a
year per 100,000
person Mexico has about 77.3
homicides a year
per 100,000
privately owned
firearms. Switzerland
has one of the
highest (#3)
private gun
ownership rates in
the world (45+
firearms per 100
person) but its
homicide rate of
0.72 a year per
100,000 person is
among the lowest
in the world.
Do you expect the two Swiss ladies
above to start killing innocent humans from
their assault riffles? (I don't.) Switzerland has about 1.6
homicides a year
per 100,000
privately owned
firearms. Honduras
has a very low
(#88) private gun
ownership
rate (est. 4
firearms per 100
person) and strict
gun-control laws -
only licensed owners
can keep firearms
and ammunition. Yet
it has the
world-highest
homicide rate of 60+
a year per 100,000
person.
Honduras
has about 1,500
homicides a year
per 100,000
privately owned
firearms,
or one and half
homicide a year per
100 privately owned
firearms.
(This, according to
"logic" of the anti-gun propaganda,
would make Honduran
privately owned guns
almost 1,000 times
more deadly than
Swiss privately
owned guns.)
El Salvador
(the home of violent
gang MS-13) has a very low
(#89) private gun
ownership
rate (est. 5.8
firearms per 100
person) and strict
gun-control laws -
only licensed owners
can keep firearms
and ammunition. Yet
it has the
world-highest
homicide rate of 60+
a year per 100,000
person.
El Salvador
has about 1,000
homicides a year
per 100,000
privately owned
firearms,
or one homicide a
year per 100
privately owned
firearms.
Firearms data
were taken from: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states. The above
website may be
characterized as
anti-gun. The above statistics
show that there is
no
causality relation
between private
guns ownership and
homicide rate.
(For otherwise, the
numbers of homicides
per 100,000
privately owned
firearms would not
vary significantly.)Although
a gun in hands of a
criminal may make it
easier for him to
kill his victim, a
gun in hands of a
prospective victim
makes is much harder
to kill the
(prospective)armed victim.
(Do you think
you can defend
yourself and those
you love with your bare hands?)
Moreover, wherever
private gun
ownership is
unlawful, only the
criminals have
privately-owned
guns.
So, if guns don't
kill people then who
or what causes the
U.S. homicide rate
to be about four
times higher than in
other Western
countries (Canada,
Europe, Australia)?
The vast
majority of
homicides in the
U.S. are perpetrated
by career
criminals
and by gangs.
Many of them
illegally buy their
"ghost guns" as they
please.
"Some 33,000
violent street
gangs,
motorcycle gangs,
and prison gangs
with about 1.4
million members
are criminally
active in the U.S.
today."
(Compare the above figures to
about 15,000
homicides a year
in the U.S.,
or 0.45 homicides a
year per violent
street gang, or
about 70 homicides a
year per 100,000 criminally active gangsters.)
For instance, the
notorious MS-13 gang
of El Salvadoran
origin has 100,000+
(probably, a low
estimate) members in
the U.S. and around
the world. Its
"business" includes:
illegal drug
smuggling and
trafficking, gun
smuggling and sales
to criminals, murder for
hire, and
assassinations of
law enforcement
personnel.
Mr. Moore would have
been more truthful
if he said: "Criminals
kill people"
or "Gangs kill
people" or
"Violent
people kill people". Yet he chose to say
"Americans
kill people",
instead, despite the facts
and statistics that
he must have known.
(Some ideologues
would go further
into that direction
of "inclusiveness"
saying "We
kill people".
Such absurd
statement is not
surprising as it
comes from advocates
of "gun control" who
are searching for
excuses to disarming
the law-abiding
American citizenry
rather than getting rid of bad guys
from among us.)
Mr. Moore's
statement appears
like a good example
of obfuscation of
the truth with Orwellian
language.
By restricting the
discourse to broader
categories of people
("Americans" or
"we", rather than
"criminals",
"gangsters", or
"violent people"),
he confuses, and
intentionally so.
Since those
violent
individuals tend
to migrate from
one country to
another if they
can, a lack of
adequate border
enforcement
in the U.S. is one of
the key factors
that contribute
to higher than
expected
homicide rates
in our country.
This is one of
many facts that
contradict human universalism
(it claims that all peoples are the same and
intrchanable).
Under the circumstances described above,
particularly, the high homicide rates in
some of the countries in proximity of the U.S.(see the map), any attempts to disarm the law-abiding American
people ("gun control" is one of such
attempts) must be characterized as reckless endangerment
of the law abiding Americans. Such
attempts could, perhaps, have some
rational justification in the
countries, like Japan, with marginally low number
of violent criminals and strictly enforced national borders, but is out
of place in the U.S., a country that has a
significant number of violent criminals (many of who crossed into the U.S. through poorly enforced border)
who - as a group - have resisted being removed
from the society. Disarming the law-abiding Americans would drive the
homicide rates up as violent
criminals would likely keep their
guns (see the National Geographic video "Ghost guns") while the law abiding would
lose their means of deterrence and
protection, and the law enforcement
cannot and is
not legally required to guarantee
individuals' safety from crime.
(Click here
for more
discussion of the
root causes of
high and low
homicide rates.)
Or, perhaps, these
are the violent
movies that make
some people kill
people?
"A new study finds
there are even more
shootings in PG-13
movies than in R
rated
films.
"Gun violence in PG-13
movies has more than
tripled
since 1985.
Comment (MS):
How about if we
talked about movie
violence
rather than gun
violence? Mr. Moore,
a professional movie
maker, would
probably not like
it. But the fact is
that Hollywood sells "gun
violence" to the
young people
(and profits
handsomely from it)
while blaming ...
NRA for the increase
of mass shootings in
the US. Remember, NRA doesn't
inspire youngsters
to do mass
shootings;
many violent movies
(and games) actually
do.
Here is a screen from a Big Data Analytics
course (a trendy Computer Science
topic these days) at
UCI
extension:
It directs the students
to design a database
with predicitve-analytic software that
would trace
ammunition buyers
and flag (some of)
them as potential
killers. (Not a
word about
flagging of
members of violent
gangs.)
The above is a sample of
politicized
"science" that the
students are exposed
to these days.
According to this
"scientific" theory
("Bullets [and not
people] kill
people"),
these were not the
Nazi troops but the
bulletsthat
killed millions of Poles in
their native country in
1939-1945. I guess, that
should clear the
question who is to be
blamed for that
slaughtering. ("Bullets,"
according to the said theory.) The
universalist advocates
of that theory try to
villify guns and
ammunitions in order to
convince us that all people are basically good
and resort to
attrocities only when
deadly weapons are
available. If
you believe in that
unproven projection
that leads to absurd
conclusions then,
perhaps, you just might
be trying to be more naive than
it is possible.
Here
is another, and more
convincing, explanation
of "gun violence".
Recent research (2015) ...
Study finds
that violent
video games
may be linked to
aggressive
behaviour
Ask
anyone
in
the
Honduran
city
of
San
Pedro
Sula
about
the
gangs
that
make
it
the
murder
capital
of
the
world and they can quickly
list the differences
between the two main
rivals.
“You
can
recognise
differences
between
the
gangs
from
their
murders,”
he
said.
“MS
just
shoot
someone.
18
are
more
sadistic.
They
torture
and chop up bodies.”
Evolutionary
perspective on ethics suggests
the following
solution of the evil
violence (including
the mass shootings)
problem.
The
solution is to weed out evil people from among us, not
to "embrace" or
"include" them as
human universalists
want us to do. The
solution is not
to help them
prosper and not
to make their evil
behavior adaptive.For it is not enough to reward good (or desirable) behavior, but it is also imperative to not reward evil (or undesirable) behavior.
It is the
elimination of
moral
judgmentalism and
abandonment of the
notion of desert
that leads to tolerance (and appeasement) of evil and - as the
recent history of
the U.S. shows -
to atrocities of
the kind that we
are seeing a lot
in America,
lately.
Here is a quote that often characterizes evil behavior, its pleas for tolerance, and propensity to censorship:
Facebook workers
routinely suppressed news
stories of interest
to conservative readers from
the social network’s
influential “trending” news
section, according to a
former journalist who worked
on the project.
Several former Facebook “news
curators,” as they
were known internally, also
told Gizmodo that they were instructed
to artificially “inject”
selected stories into the
trending news module,
even if they weren’t popular
enough to warrant
inclusion—or in some cases
weren’t trending at all. The
former curators, all of whom
worked as contractors, also
said they were
directed not to include
news about Facebook
itself in the trending
module.
Comment (M.S.) Just like
Liberal-dominated
universities insulate their
students from views and
opinions that would make
them critical of Left's
ideology, Facebook is trying
to insulate its users from
the news that it deems
"inconvenient" and exposes
them to stories that
project a bias image of
reality and public opinion.
Facebook
Manager in Charge of
Trending Topics Is Max
Clinton Donor
The
person in charge of
Facebook’s Trending Topics
section, which has come
under fire in recent days
over accusations that the
social media platform
deliberately suppressed news
articles that were published
on conservative websites, is
a maximum donor to
Hillary Clinton’s
presidential campaign.
I
disapprove of what you
say, but I will defend to
the death your right to
say it.
Voltaire's
view
on freedom of speech
Note:
The above statement
demonstrates, among other
things, that tolerance does not
imply approval.
So, one can tolerate certain
behavior of others, for
instance, unethical behavior
that is not prohibited by the
law, or even defend others'
right to behave that way,
while at the same time
disapproving of it.
(Recall the difference
between morality
and legality)
Current events ...
The
Intolerant, Illiberal, Regressive Left and
Its Consequences
"Illiberal leftism is clearly
intent on stifling
freedom
of speech,
academic
freedom, and the
free exchange of
ideas,
all in the name of
social justice. "
Liberal intolerance is on the rise on
America’s college campuses
"Today’s students are
indeed both more left wing and
more openly hostile to free
speech than
earlier generations of
collegians.
"NO FREEDOM FOR HATE SPEECH" (according to some
students at UC Santa Cruz)
Comment (MS): If there is a
kind of speech that deserves
to be banned, it is that kind
of speech (shown on the above
picture). It has all
appearances of hate speech
directed against free speech.
Confusion of
tolerance with
approval is a common mistake.
It is often the root
cause of fallacious
arguments. For
instance, some political
activists insist that
once the society
tolerates some abnormal
behavior, it must also
approve of it (which
conclusion doesn't
follow). The
deomonstrators shown on
the "NO
FREEDOM FOR HATE SPEECH" photo
commit the
contrapositive fallacy;
they apparently claim
that they cannot
tolerate what they do
not approve.
Optional
reading:
No Freedom or Tolerance for Hate
Speech, But Quite a Lot of
Freedom and Tolerance for
Convicted Criminals
“We’re
here to take historic action to
defend American students and
American values—they’ve been
under siege,” [President]
Trump told reporters in the
East Room before signing the
order. “Universities that want
taxpayer dollars should
promote free speech, not
silence free speech.”
Content of expression
is protected:
The U.S. Supreme Court has
consistently held that
governments may impose
“reasonable time, place, and
manner” restrictions to regulate
nuisances attendant upon
expression. A court will uphold
such a regulation if it is
tailored to meet a "compelling
governmental interest" (a legal
phrase used by the courts), such
as noise abatement, and if it
does not discriminate based on
the content of expression. The
rule that applies for a rock
concert, for example, must also
apply to an equally loud opera
performed at the same time of
day.
Court's opinion:
Anonymity of the speaker
protected by First Amendment
The courts have decided that
stripping a speaker from
anonymity (for instance,
revealing the true identity of
anonymous blogger) will have a
"chilling effect" (a legal term
used by the courts) on free
speech. Therefore, said
anonymity enjoys First Amendment
protection.
Prevention
may take a form of
constraining an individual
before his (supposed)
commission of the crime. Censorship
(in the U.S. oftern referred
to as prior restraint)
often falls into this
category.
An individual
may be not allowed to fully
exercise his free speech
right because of future
detrimental effect that his
speech may have
on the society, or because
it may lead to unlawful or
criminal act(s). That's censorship.
The said form of
prevention in general, and censorship
in particular, seem to
contradict the current legal
doctrine of presumption of innocence (innocent until
proven guilty)
that stipulates involuntary
constraining the
perpetrators after the
criminal act.
They also seem
to contradict one of the
core principles of
leaves the individuals with
free choice of action and
holds them responsible for
wrongdoing but only after the
act. For how can one deprive
an individual of his
constitutional liberty not
only before
proving his guilt but also before he
had a chance to act?
Truly free
individuals need not to be
restricted (say, by their
government) for "their
protection." Such
governmental restrictions
are sometimes expressions of
mistrust
towards the ability of the
people to tell truth from
falsehood, but usually
they are means of speech control
that prevents the People
from questioning validity
and rationality of
governmental actions.
A recurring excuse for censorship by dictatorial or oppressive governments has been the necessity to prevent misinformation (expression of false statements).
When strictly imposed, such prevention of misinformation (expression of
false statements) typically leads to silencing of opposition and
dissidents. Dictatorial and oppressive governments are not known for
openness. They conduct their "business" in secrecy. Therefore, their
subjects usually do not know exactly what the said governments are
doing. Thus any specific criticism of the said dictatorial and oppressive governments is likely to contain factual errors,
and be banned under the pretext of prevention of misinformation
(expression of false statements). Never mind that dictatorial and
oppressive governments often resort to misinformation and silence those
who point it out.
Thus attempts to impose laws against misinformation (expression of false statements) are likely to facilitate imposition of dictatorships and oppression.
Self-censorship
undermines First
Amendment
"Political
correctness
[from Russian:
politicheskaya pravilnost]
is communist propaganda
writ small.” It is a form of
enforcement of groupthink.
“The purpose of
communist propaganda
was not to persuade or
convince, nor to inform, but
to humiliate; and therefore,
the less it corresponded to
reality the better. When
people are forced to remain
silent when they are being
told the most obvious lies,
or even worse when they are
forced to repeat the lies
themselves, they lose once
and for all their sense of
probity.” [Quote from Theodore
Dalrymple]
Note.
The original meaning of the
adjective politically correct was narrower. It referred to a
statement that was factually
false but was supporting
political agenda. Here is a
context of some original use
of the said adjective from:
It contradicts “political correctness” that tells you
to not doubt or question
certain doctrines just
because these doctrines were
authoritatively stated or
enjoy support of a group of
political power.
Skepticism
is one of the cornerstones
of modern
science "Descartes [Cartesius] is justly regarded
as the Father of Modern
Philosophy"). Those who
want to criminalize
skepticism or punish skeptics
are pushing the clock of
history back to the Dark Ages
and medieval times of Inquisition.
More
on
Cartesius' philosophy can be found in
this optional
article on the above subject:
The right to
free speech is predicated on
the right to free thought.
It is hard to imagine how
anyone could speak freely if
there were limitations on
what one was allowed to
think.
The
freedom
of
thought is even more fundamental (and
pre-existing) right than the
freedom of speech.
Yet
there
are
those who want to infringe on this
inalienable right of yours.
They want to influence or
control your thinking. If they
could they would implant in
your mind what George Orwell
called "thought-crime stop" in
his "1984" novel.
“Thou canst not touch the freedom of
my mind,” wrote the playwright
John Milton in 1634.
But,
nearly 400 years later, technological
advances in machines that can
read our thoughts mean the
privacy of our brain is under
threat.
Hate crimes warrant
"enhanced" punishment if the
perpetrator had hateful
thoughts during commission of
the crime. In a sense,
hate
crime = thought crime + act crime.
How about hate speech? Is it
protected? Here is the ACLU
position:
"The
First Amendment to the United States
Constitution protects speech
no matter how offensive its
content. Speech codes adopted
by government-financed state
colleges and universities
amount to government censorship,
in violation of the
Constitution. And the ACLU
believes that all campuses
should adhere to First
Amendment principles because
academic freedom is a bedrock
of education in a free
society."
Fighting words
In Chaplinsky
v. New Hampshire (1942),
the Supreme Court defined
"fighting words" as
face-to-face "epithets that
are likely to provoke the
average person to retaliation"
and "are no
essential part of any
exposition of ideas." The Court concluded that such
words are not protected by
First Amendment.
Walter
Chaplinsky
had been charged and convicted for
calling a police officer a "God
dammed racketeer" and
"a
damned fascist,"
which conviction was appealed
by the defendant and affirmed
by the Supreme Court.
Offensive
speech
is a subcategory of
controversial speech.
There are ongoing efforts to
remove offensive speech from
1st Amendment protection and
to make it illegal.
(Obscenity is already
illegal.) Why do such
efforts go against the
purpose of 1st Amendment?
There are some unsettling
questions about
possibility of the
government regulating
offensive speech.
What constitutes offensive
speech? Who decides if any
particular expression is
offensive? Can telling the
truth be considered
offensive? Can expression of
opinion or belief be
considered offensive? Can a
display of historic
artifacts be offensive?
Is "heresy" an
offensive speech?
These questions are not to
be dismissed easily. Giordano Bruno
"[...]
he
continued to promote unorthodox
views in the face of the
then-strong Roman
Inquisition, which jailed
him for six years,
convicted him of heresy,
and burned
him at the stake, hanging
upside-down, gagged, and
naked on February
17, 1600."
The
courts rulled that offensive speech
is protected by First
Amendment. Below are
quotes from a recent ruling. The
Legal Analysis of First
Amendment and inadmissibility of
heckler's veto included
therein makes it a highly recommendend
although a lengthy and optional
read.
Bible Believers v. Wayne County
United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit
No. 13–1635
Decided and Filed: October 28,
2015
“If
there is a bedrock principle
underlying the First
Amendment, it is that the
government may not prohibit
the expression of an idea
simply because society finds
the idea itself offensive
or disagreeable.” Snyder v.
Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 458
(2011)
“The right to speak freely and
to promote diversity of ideas
. . . is . . . one of the
chief distinctions that sets
us apart from totalitarian
regimes,” Terminiello v. City
of Chi., 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)
"The scenario presented by
this case, known as the “heckler's "Wise" veto,” occurs
when police silence a speaker
to appease the crowd and stave
off a potentially violent
altercation."
"In this opinion we
reaffirm the comprehensive
boundaries of the First
Amendment's free speech
protection, which envelopes all manner of speech,
even when that speech is loathsome in its
intolerance,
designed to cause offense,
and, as a result of such
offense, arouses violent
retaliation."
"Wise" government vs. "stupid" people
"Wise"
collectivist/socialist/utilitarian
government needs censorship
in order to silence
the critics of the
devastating effects that the
replacement of
(and similar
governmental regulation)
has on the society.
"Wise"
collectivist/socialist/utilitarian
government does not
need free speech.
Free speech is not needed (or is
"outdated",
as some say) in a
collectivist/socialist/utilitarian
society centrally controlled
by its government.
"Wise"
collectivist/socialist/utilitarian
government has a tendency to treat its
"stupid" people
as if they were its livestock.
A
propos "wise government vs.
stupid people"
Caught on Camera:
Obamacare [Affordable Care Act] Architect Admits Deceiving Americans
to Pass Law
“Lack of
transparency is a huge political
advantage,” says the MIT
economist who helped write
Obamacare. “And basically, call
it the stupidity
of the American voter
or whatever, but basically that
was really, really critical for
the thing to pass.”
And
the
advocates
of
that
arrangement
seem
to
have
a fallacy for
every occasion when they are
out to defend it from its
critics and the facts that
those critics bring up. "Net neutrality" was passed
into the law in 2015. ("net leveling" seems
like a more descriptive
term here) ...
[President] Obama’s call for
an open
Internet [a.k.a.
net neutrality] puts him at odds
with regulators
"Hours
after President Obama called for
the Federal Communications
Commission to pass tougher
regulations on
high-speed Internet
providers, the agency’s
Democratic chairman told a
group of business
executives that he was
moving in a different
direction."
Comment M.S.
An example of Orwellian
language:
open
is tougher
regulated, or
neutrality
is social leveling.
A question: Was Robin Hood
neutral?
A propos equity (a.k.a. social leveling
and elimination of
competition) ...
Optional but
highly recommended
reading:
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt
Vonnegut, Jr.
(copyrighted
material, the link below is
included for educational
purposes only and not for entertainment or
downloading; click here for
U.S. Code Tittle 17 Chapter 1
para 107 containing the "fair use"
exception for copyrighted
material)
"THE
YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was
finally equal. They
weren't only equal before God
and the law. They were equal
every which way. Nobody was
smarter than anybody else.
Nobody was better looking than
anybody else. Nobody was
stronger or quicker than
anybody else. All this
equality was due to the 211th,
212th, and 213th Amendments to
the Constitution, and to the
unceasing vigilance of agents
of the United States
Handicapper General. ...
Here is the movie "2081"
based on the above novel, courtesy of the Moving Picture Institute from the website (highly recommended) https://www.teaching2081.org/ (please, recall the "1984"movie while watching it):
You may watch the movie (strongly recommeded) by clicking on the link, below, entering your email address, and answering a security question.
Here is a short 4-minutes lecture (highly recommeded) from the same website titled "Why Does Government Grow?"
You may watch it by clicking on the above link, entering your email address, and answering a security question.
"Mass murderer
Charles Manson
plans to marry a
26-year-old
woman who left
her Midwestern
home and spent
the past nine
years trying to
help exonerate
him."
Caption: People wait in line to
enter a small market to try to
buy hard-to-find items
such as disposable
diapers, laundry detergent and razors in
downtown Caracas, Venezuela.
(Ariana Cubillos/AP)
Economists say the wage increases are
only likely to feed the
inflationary spiral
that coupled with widespread
shortages of goods is wreaking
havoc on Venezuelans as the
oil-dependent economy struggles.
Inflation last year
totaled 69 percent, the
highest in the world.
And with oil prices down by a
third from a year ago, the
amount of dollars available to
pay for importing goods ranging
from car parts to toilet paper
has fallen sharply, leaving
reserves of international
currencies at their lowest level
in nearly 12 years.
"It
has been an exceptionally painful
year for Venezuelans,
suffering from violent crime,
chronic shortages, plummeting
oil prices on which they
depend, declining health and
fractured government. Yet this
past week it seemed to reach a
new low. A kind of resigned
misery spread across a city
that had once been the envy
of Latin America.
Venezuela says murders soared to 60 per
day in 2016
"CARACAS
(Reuters) - Venezuela's murder rate rose
to an average 60 per day last
year, up from about 45 per day
in 2015, the attorney
general's office said on
Friday, as a deep economic and
political crisis exacerbated
violence in the country.
Official data put the murder rate at
70.1 per 100,000 inhabitants
last year, one of the
highest in the world
and up from 58 in 2015.
Violent crime is one of the most
pervasive anxieties for
Venezuelans, especially in
poor slums dominated by gangs
and rife with guns."
"It's
no secret that things are bad in
Venezuela. Rolling
blackouts are causing infant
deaths in hospitals where
backup generators have ceased
to function; the country is on
pace to hit 700 percent
inflation; outside of active
war zones, the murder rate in
Caracas is the highest in the
world.
[...]
The force that is
driving Venezuela into the
ground is socialism."
Here is a mural from
Venezuela that depicts Hugo
Chaves, the leader of
Vanazuela's socialist
transformation that begun some
two decades ago:
Of course, other
socialists deny
that socialism
is a problemem there,
as long as the majority of
Venezuelans voted for it.
"AS
INTERNATIONALISTS and anti-imperialists, we look
to the people of Venezuela to
defend their own sovereignty.
We recognize that the
greatest threat to peace,
democracy and prosperity in
Latin America has always
been the U.S. state
and U.S. big business."
Comment (MS): Somehow, when
it comes to sovereignty of the
US, it is - according
to "intenationalists" - an
"outdated" concept that
needs to be abolished.
Hypocrisy
has always been a defining future
of socialist ideologues. It
was that way in Soviet Union
empire and it is that way,
today, in America.
If
they only could, they would impose
the Venezuela model (socialism)
on the entire Americas, and
blame "imperialists" and "big
business" for all the misery
that is going to follow.
A
propos privacy ...
Massive Postal Service breach hits
employees and customers
"A
12-year-old boy who was shot by Cleveland
police officers while carrying
a replica gun in a park
playground has died, hospital
officials said today.
A
year ago ...
Redistribution
of "wealth"
Federal government books $41.3 billion
in profits on student loans
"The federal government
made enough money on student
loans over the last
year that, if it wanted, it
could provide maximum-level
Pell Grants of $5,645 to 7.3
million college students.
"The $41.3-billion profit
for the 2013 fiscal year is
down $3.6 billion from the
previous year but still enough
to pay for one year of tuition
at the University of Michigan
for 2,955,426 Michigan
residents.
"It’s a higher profit
level than all but two
companies in the world:
Exxon Mobil cleared $44.9
billion in 2012, and Apple
cleared $41.7 billion.
Arming police
Spoils of war: Police getting
leftover Iraq trucks
"Coming
soon to your local sheriff: 18-ton,
armor-protected military
fighting vehicles with gun
turrets and bulletproof
glass that were once
the U.S. answer to roadside
bombs during the Iraq war.
Comment (MS): So, according
to some, guns have no place
or use in a civilized modern
society. We are, supposedly,
so much past violence and
similar inhumane (or
uncivilized) behavior that
private individual gun
ownership is an anachronism
that needs to be eliminated.
But at the same time,
there is ostensibly nothing
"univilized" with arming
police with military
weaponry, assault riffles,
and - what same may call -
weapons of mass destruction.
So, if we don't need
guns for lawful purposes
then why do our police and
other law enforcement
agencies need them?Because civilized
people don't kill in self
defense and let the police
to do the killing?
I hope you see a hypocrisy
in this kind of rhetoric.
"It all comes down to a question of trust. Giving a person access to your network – especially the kind of access that’s required to analyze your security – is akin to giving someone access to your bank accounts. It’s a position that carries a great deal of responsibility. Would you hire a former embezzler to oversee your money? Probably not, because that person has been shown to misuse that type of access in the past.
Those in favor of hiring hackers (and the hackers hoping to be hired) will argue that “it takes one to catch one.” However, you don’t see law enforcement agencies hiring former murderers to help them catch violent criminals or former burglars to help thwart other breakers-and-enterers. Oh, they might make use of those people as confidential informants but they would never put them into positions of trust where they would have the opportunity to commit the same crimes again.
[...]
The possible ramifications of having a covert hacker on the “inside” of your network range from serious to devastating. He could use your network to launch a botnet attack. He could send out malware from your location. He could even access files with your company’s confidential financial data or trade secrets and sell the information to one of your competitors.
[...]
Bottom line is that someone who would illegally access someone else’s network may not have a strong sense of right and wrong and/or might have a problem with authority. If he had no compunction about breaking the law, why would you think he would be willing to abide by your company’s policies and the rules and boundaries that you lay down for him as an employee or consultant?
It’s also important to remember that “birds of a feather flock together.” Hackers tend to be friends with other hackers. They learn from each other, and it’s also a culture in which members get a lot of gratification out of impressing each other. Even if “your” hacker doesn’t attempt to harm your network or its assets, can you be sure that he won’t inadvertently let slip information about it when bragging to his hacker friends, that they might use to get in and wreak havoc?
[...]
The practical reasons aside, those who set the tone for a company must examine whether hiring a hacker fits in with their own codes of ethics. Do you want to encourage the practice of profiting from one’s criminal background?
[Comment (M.S.): Such encouragement would make crime (in general) and hacking (in particular) even more adaptive than it is, and lead to growth of the segment of our society that commits those crimes. As a result, we would see more and more hacking and more and more damage that it inflicts to the individuals and society.]
New: PowerPoint (in pptx format) version of slides on
Limits of
Computability with narrative (copyrighted material); needs to be played as Slide Show:http://csc.csudh.edu/suchenek/CSC301/ Slides/On_limits_of_computability_w_narrative.pptxIt's a copyrighted
material, so the
students in this class can
read them but not to copy or
distribute them. There is no way to predict
behavior of something as
simplistic as a Turing
machine.
So, it is not possible to
predict behavior of a
human being.
Imagine, what happens if
the central planners
impose regulations that go
against people's nature.
You will have millions of
intelligent individuals
trying to go around
restrictions imposed by
these regulations, so the
planning must fail.
When
you have a stable
society, like the
U.S., that works and
is sustainable, you
should cherish it
and protect it (conserve
it) rather than
"intelligently"
redesign it
(ironically, some
call the latter a
"progress").
Unfortunately, virtually
all those who have enough
power to dictate us how
are we going live our
lives seem mentally
incapable of understanding
the said theorem about
Turing machines (never
mind actually proving it).
And so they keep being
wrong, which - eventually
- will inflict irreparable
damage to the Republic.
The rest of
this section is
optional for all
students and will not
be covered by the
final.
"The
political left might
consider itself more
open-minded than the right.
But research shows that
liberals are just as
prejudiced against
conservatives as
conservatives are against
liberals."
Note (MS): There is a big difference
here. The "liberals" want to
impose changes on how the
"conservatives" live their
lives, while the "conservatives" just
want to be left alone.
Natural selection in Right-Left
division
"Right" is based
on ethics
and not on
ideology. It
assumes individuals are
rational and make free
choices. This attracts
people who have a natural
tendency to go along with
such assumption.
"Left" is based
on ideology
and not on
ethics.Click
here: It replaces ethic
with ideology. It does
not assume individuals are
rational and make free
choices. That tends to freak
almost everybody out (so
they "vote with their feet")
except for those who have a
natural tendency to submit
themselves to the ideology
(so they don't have to make
free choices) and to
delegate their thinking to
the "authority" (so they
don't have to be rational).
The latter are ideological
devouts.
Ideology needs censorship.
Ideology's flaws and absurd
consequences often become
obvious when properly
exposed. Censorship prevents
such an exposure.
One's political
orientation in a
(relatively) free society
is predicated upon the
nature of the individual.
That, to large extent, is
determined genetically and
leads to natural selection.
Birds of the feather flock
together. Therefore, it's
not a surprise that they
exhibit similar traits and
propensities in different
contexts, for instance, in
various types of
collectivism, which socialism
is a subcategory of.
The devoted
ideologues are a long-term
threat to American
Republic as we
know her, although
they may come with smiles
and claim good intentions.
The danger that they pose to
the rest of us, normal
Americans, lies in their
overriding commitment to
(a.k.a. fanaticism
of) the ideology.
Those ideological
fanatics who firmly
submitted themselves to it
like to religion or to a god
will dismiss about
everything that contradicts
it. They seem to have a fallacy
for every occasion
when they are out to
defend their ideology
from its critics and
the facts that those
critics bring up.
They will
suppress their natural
resentment towards evil and
convince themselves that
since they are fighting for
a "noble cause", they are
automatically excused for
any wrongdoing and damage
they may inflict to others.
They may, eventually, turn
into monsters
if the ideology calls.
We will never be
safe or free as long as
the ideology rules.
Thus we need to eradicate it
from our lives and, our
society, and our world, if
we want to remain the free
people, that is.
Interesting optional reading
(fromStanford University
website)
Communism and Computer Ethics:
Public Goods and
Intellectual Property Rights
"Communist
philosophy argues against
private property
and supports collective
ownership. This
philosophy applies
specifically to intellectual
property and software. The common view is
that no person should on
their own or control any
property, whether
electronic, merely an idea,
or otherwise.
"Modern communist theorist
Maarten Vanheuverswyn argues
that the sharing of software
and ideas benefits society
because "human knowledge and
the produce of human labour
is used to the advantage of
all society." In this
thought framework, no
programmer is
compensated personally
for their work:
the entire society benefits
by making source code
available because everyone
will collectively work on
the software as well as
collectively reap the
benefits. Communist
theory about software is
similar to traditional open
source arguments: that
source code sharing can
provide greater access my
multiple people, and
therefore the greatest minds
can all work on it at once,
thus producing higher
quality software.
"Communism
therefore argues against all
patents, and because of this
also argues against
the patent protection
of intellectual
property,
including software.
Patents
on
algorithms,
interfaces,
and
ideas
are
all
incompatible
with traditional communist
theory.
"Anthony
Elonis claimed he was just
kidding when he
posted a series of
graphically violent
rap lyrics on
Facebook about
killing his
estranged wife,
shooting up a
kindergarten class
and attacking an FBI
agent.
"But
his wife didn't see it
that way. Neither
did a federal jury.
"Elonis,
who's from Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania, was
convicted of
violating a federal
law that makes it a
crime to threaten
another person.
"In
a far-reaching case
that probes the
limits of free
speech over the
Internet, the
Supreme Court on
Monday was to
consider whether
Elonis' Facebook
posts, and others
like it, deserve
protection under the
First Amendment.
A
propos "free speech"
- in socialist
countries ...
"Vietnamese police have detained
a blogger for
posting "bad
content" about the
state, the latest
move in a crackdown
on dissent that has
been condemned by
rights groups and
Western governments.
"Hong
Le Tho, 65, was
detained for
"posting online
articles with bad
content and false
information that
discredit and
create distrust
among people about
state agencies,
social agencies and
citizens," the
Ministry of Public
Security said on
Saturday on its
website.
A
propos computer
crime ...
Sony
Struggles to Fight
#GOP Hackers Who
Claim Stolen Data
Includes Stars’ IDs,
Budget and Contract
Figures
"The devastating attack
represents a
potential warning
shot to other
Hollywood studios,
not to mention other
major corporations.
In addition to being
locked out of
company email,
employees have had
their passwords and
account numbers
stolen and in some
cases are getting
calls from banks and
other security
systems to alert
them to the hack.
"The
security break at Sony
Pictures marks the
second time that
Sony Corporation had
been targeted by
hackers. In 2011,
the online network
for Sony's
PlayStation game
console was broken
into, exposing names
and credit card
numbers for millions
of customers. By the
time damages from
more than 50
class-action
lawsuits had been
paid, it's estimated
that Sony spent more
than $2 billion as a
result of the
breach.
"Further
disturbing is that thus far the
studio's IT experts
have been unable to
reverse the attack
and get the computer
system back to
normal. “The IT
department has
absolutely no idea
what hit them or if
they can recover any
of their files or
operating systems,
or even turn on
their computers
Monday,” said the
insider.
Sony’s New
Movies Leak Online
Following Hack
Attack
“Fury”
has been downloaded by
over 888,000 unique
IP addresses since
showing up on
peer-to-peer
networks on Nov. 27,
according to piracy
tracking firm
Excipio. That’s high
enough to be the
second most
downloaded movie
currently being
pirated, and it’s
not out of movie
theaters yet.
Here is a snapshot from a
November 2012 issue of the
OC Register:
Video
Here is a link to the
opening scene of a very
entertaining movie, "Idiocracy",
that touches (satirically),
on the same subject. The
full movie, although
available in the Internet,
is a copyrighted material, so you
are not allowed to watch
the full movie without
buying or renting it
(for instance, here).
However, you may watch
this trailer (2
min. 55 sec.) in order to
find out if you are
interested in buying/renting
it. I posted the link below
for education purpose only
for use in this class.
Here is a 19th century
painting that depicts an
abrupt end of the ancient
Rome that was housing the
most technologically
advanced, civilized, and
stable society on Earth at
that time (410 - 455 E.C.).
Perhaps, we should stop
taking America for granted
and consider Rome's sorry
fate as a worst-case
scenario that, if it
materializes here, can take
away from us everything we
have now. We are
very lucky to live in
this exceptionally great country of ours
that we may lose if we do
not appreciate it and do not
defend it.
"At
present, on a global scale,
human population is well advanced along
the trajectory
shown as the green
curve in Figure 6. We have exceeded
carrying capacity
and entered the
danger zone
labeled “Overshoot.”
We are depleting
natural habitat and
degrading the carrying
capacity of the planet. This is the
overriding
message behind
ecological footprint analysis as it has developed
and evolved over the past
two decades.
The Oakland-based Global
Footprint Network calculates
that humanity’s worldwide
ecological footprint surpassed
the worldwide
biocapacity (one
measure of carrying capacity) in about 1970 (Figure 7)."
"Figure 1 shows such a population
irruption, up to
a peak, and followed by a
crash. In this graph, K
represents carrying
capacity, N
equals number or population size,
and t
equals time.
Note that the irruption is temporary
or transitory. They are always
transitory. Once N
surpasses the K
threshold (carrying capacity), its hours, days,
weeks or years (depending on the species) are
numbered, and a decrease will set in sooner or
later."
CAPS
(CAlifornians for Population Stabilization)
is an organization composed of
university professors, scientists,
and highly educated professionals dedicated
to saving our state from
ecological catastrophe.
UN statistics suggest
that the global population
will increase from the
current 7.4 billion to
11.2 billion by 2100.
And as Dasgupta noted, most
of these extra billions will
appear in Africa, where the
fertility rate is still
twice that of the rest of
the world.
“[Africa’s]
population is likely to go
from roughly one billion now
to around 4 billion,” said
Dasgupta.
Ehrlich agreed:
“If you look at the figures,
it is clear that to support today’s
world population
sustainably – and I
emphasise the word
sustainably – you would require
another half a planet
to provide us with those
resources. However, if everyone
consumed resources at the
US level – which is
what the world aspires to –
you will need another four or five Earths.
Comment (MS): Some say that
in some areas of the world people over-procreate because they are
poor. This is a fallacy.
The correct causality
here is: Overpopulation
leads to poverty.
Projecting Immigration’s Impact on the
Size and Age Structure of the
21st Century American
Population
"If immigration continues as the
Census Bureau expects, the nation's population
will increase from 309
million in 2010 to 436
million in 2050 — a
127 million (41 percent)
increase.
"Armed with new technologies,
including mobile devices that
tap into cellphone data in real
time, dozens of local and state police
agencies are capturing
information about thousands of
cellphone users at a
time, whether they are
targets of an investigation or
not, according to
public records obtained by USA
TODAY and Gannett newspapers and
TV stations.
"Organizations such as the
American Civil Liberties Union
and Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) say
the swelling ability by even
small-town police departments to
easily and quickly obtain large
amounts of cellphone data raises
questions about the erosion of
people's privacy as well as
their Fourth Amendment
protections against
unreasonable search and
seizure.
"In most states, police can get
many kinds of cellphone data without obtaining a
warrant, which they'd
need to search someone's house
or car.
Anti-gun
laws ...
BB gun control: In New Jersey,
kids’ rite of passage could
mean felony
"Not only could you 'shoot your
eye out, kid,' you might also go to jail for owning
that BB gun in certain
states.
"New Jersey and other
jurisdictions make little or no
distinction between Daisy's
classic Red Ryder BB gun
immortalized in the film 'A
Christmas Story,' and real guns.
They must be
registered and are subject to
the same laws as any firearms.
"“In all honesty, kids who are charged
are looking at mandatory jail
time,” said New Jersey
attorney William Proetta, adding
that under the state’s Graves
Act, a conviction could lead to
prison time. “The only defense
is to request a waiver but if
that’s not granted, young kids
can get a felony charge and
their lives are basically over.”
Good luck
on the final!
Note
This
page and other
pages in the
entire course
website http://csc.csudh.edu/suchenek/CSC301/
may contain
third parties'
copyrighted
material that
is included
and/or used
herein for
non-profit
educational
purposes only,
and not for
any other
purpose, and
only for the
duration of
the course.
Click here for U.S. Code Tittle 17 Chapter 1 para 107 with
the "fair
use"
exception of
copyrighted
material.
subordinates
individual rights to group's interest. It
allows forced transfer (pre-emption
and redistribution) of individual
property in order to maximize total
utility. (Ostensibly, wealth
is better utilized if evenly
distributed.) In return,
utilitarianism promises universal
happiness. In its extreme, it
imposes the tyranny of utility.
Soviet Union, a socialist (therefore,
utilitarian) system, the "protectors" became the oppressors. Here is a
link to biography of one of the most
"accomplished" ones, Soviet Gen. Vasili
Blokhin: 
co-operation that led to the
extermination of 22,000 Polish intellectuals and army officers by
the Soviet authorities (NKVD) at
the beginning of WWII; they were
killed because they were deemed
unwilling to submit themselves to
socialist ideology;
watching it is optional
but highly recommended as an
illustration only; will not
be covered by tests or final (1 hr
56 min in Polish/Russian/German with English
subtitles, Oscar-nominated 2007):
The
political system of the U.S. is
mainly based on individual rights.
Most notably, the right to life,
liberty,
and property.
It could be characterized as individualism.
Individuals are often successful
in claiming their individual rights on
their behalf.
For
example, if a government,
its bureaucracy, or a committee, that is excluded from the
competition (which it typically is) selects winners and
losers then the controlled competition
that results from such an arrangement is
no longer the driving force of the
socio-economic improvement.
and
Soviet Union 
"On October 1, 2017, night a
64-year-old 
