Any system where chance affects outcome is, by definition, not meritocratic. Where it is found that providence, the so-called "Will of God", is placed above merit, the will of men, there it is found that power is placed above freedom. The chance factor is not a neutral factor, but an incumbent factor: an additional burden placed on the meritorious, a bias in favor of nobility.

To be subject to an environment requires adaptation, like an animal. And like a domestic animal, when the environment is controlled by another man. To subject yourself to an "invisible hand" is to subject yourself to anyone with the means and the will to domesticate you.

There is no "natural" balance in a system of wills. A balance certainly exists, but it is entirely artificial as an artifact of man. Your measure within that balance is an expression that is the product of both:

1. Your environmental or physical power, your conditions.
2. Your mental or psychological power, your will.

To change that balance, the will should be focused on conditions to directly counter the "The Invisible Hand", a hand that is stacked against you despite — or rather because of — its shuffle. Consider a game of poker starting off with an imbalance of chips.

1. When credit is extended to the portion of the labor market that does not need it, then credit lowers the demand for wage in the labor market. If a laborer whose employment is not at risk can live partially on credit, then their bargaining power decreases.

2. When credit is extended to the portion of the labor market that does need it, then credit raises the demand for wage in the labor market. If a laborer whose employment is at risk can live off of credit, then their bargaining power increases.

Now, what is the credit market like today, with respect to these observations? Credit is extended the cheapest to capitalists who use the credit to profit from the labor market. Interest rates increase in proportion to demand, so they increase in proportion to need. The only modern device that counters this is effective employment insurance.

Voting is only about freedom in that electors are free to elect the given candidates within the provided electoral system. That is a very small amount of power compared to the power of party leaders to select the candidates, and control the electoral system. In that light, it is difficult to assign any power at all to voting. It has been argued that voting actually expresses a lack of power, since it expresses not The Will of The People, but rather The Willingness of The People.

The freedom of a thing is a property of its conditions. It has nothing to do with a choice. It is about what choices are possible. People who make good choices often appear to be more free than those who do not, but often the appearance of a good choice is really the product of a good environment.

The only choices that affect freedom are those that change environment, meaning that the chosen actions must produce the effect of a systematic development, not a mere social adaptation. Elections typically affect the subjects of society without affecting its subjugators because the parties only allow wedge issues to dominate politics.

Under capitalist theory, labor is worth whatever it can demand. It is a market condition just like everything else. The setting of minimum wage has nothing to do with the market for tasks, but the market for people. When thinking about minimum wage, it makes little sense to consider what a task is worth because the value of a task is dependent on the included value of its labor. If the business model cannot account for labor costs, it is a bad business model.

If the worth of a person’s time becomes less than the cost of living that time, then we have contract slavery. We also have a less efficient economy due to lost opportunities preventing innovation, and a smaller middle class to drive a mass market for innovation.

A minimum wage law is not about forcing an employer to pay a certain amount, although that is the effect. It is about forcing laborers as a group to not accept wages that create a market for contract slavery. This is exactly the kind of thing that requires market-level organization, and why unions naturally organize in a capitalist economy.

History often forgets that capitalists fear communism because it is a logical extension of capitalist theory, by design. All communist ideas are borne from observations of the effects of capitalism.

But then, where did capitalist ideas come from? A noble class, finding itself threatened by the industrial revolution, desired to legitimize an idle life within a working, productive, utilitarian society. Just as today, the goal is to create a system of rules that apply to everyone equally with respect to conditions, so that condition is the sole exception to all rules, and the main driver of success. If good conditions beget better conditions, then the noble class may be spared.

However, the role of the free state is to manage conditions, not people. In our states, the resources of the state, the ultimate environmental condition of the people, from raw materials to wireless spectrum to fiat currency, are auctioned off to a noble class. Just take a look at what the biggest growth industries are, and how resources are involved.

The economic observations of capitalism do not belong to capitalism any more than the observations of Darwin belong to social darwinism. Capitalism is nothing more than an extremist social demandism. And so is communism. What is needed is an acknowledgement that capitalism and communism are archetypes that represent a difference in systematic bias.

All design problems are left untouched by these extreme ideas. Neither side wants to expose its actual vision for social conditions. That makes sense, though, because freedom is one of the most feared ideas ever conceived. The concept of God finds its best use in reassuring people that freedom does not actually exist. Consider the ideal woman, and discover how a man expects to serve his master.

“In the beginning”, cosmology, the study of the universe, was used to elucidate ontology, the study of being. Why describe such big ideas, when ontology applies to anything? Because cosmology can appear mystical, by being obscure and authoritative, for dealing with issues at the boundary of causal knowledge.

However, cosmology is only capable of elucidating ontology, because cosmology is still not general enough to define ontology. After all, cosmology is only merely universal, whereas ontology requires complete and perfect generality. Cosmology is, in a sense, too concrete to provide a properly constructive ontology, the rightful aesthetic goal.

The science of cosmology serves a wonderful purpose by orienting theories toward the space-time plane of our existence. But ontology is about all planes. There is a funny side-effect where, in ontology, all abstractions are concrete for scientific purposes. That is, a laboratory for ontology may be an entirely mental structure.

I understand that this is an exceptional interface into the scientific method, so the burden of proof must be exceptionally high. However, that is not much of a problem because the opportunities to demonstrate are also exceptionally high, for they are literally infinite in number, and may be as concrete or abstract as desired.

The fact that ontology is able to be abstracted has allowed it to be construed as a mystical study, only able to be considered metaphysically. But really, its metaphysical scope does not preclude its physical scope, just as any other branch of mathematics. And it really is a branch of mathematics. I think of it between set theory and geometry.

I have been finding lately that I do not need to vote. I am still actually voting. I mean, I go through the process of voting, but when I am finished with a ballot, none of the names have a mark next to them, so often I don’t even need to return my ballot, like when there aren’t any initiatives. On the surface, it looks like I am not voting at all. Under the surface, it looks like I am voting just like any other voter.

I just find that I can no longer provide a mandate to any party candidate. The parties have made clear what their intentions are, and I don’t support any revealed party intention. Considering this, it would be wrong for me to vote for a party candidate.

And since the electoral system is owned and operated by the parties, and the initiative thresholds are set in proportion to voting counts, I am finding that it is wrong for me to participate in that system. However, I am still indoctrinated to the point where I still get excited when I get a ballot. Maybe that will fade soon.

I just need to record this for posterity.

The stock market is in a bubble. It is an earnings bubble. The price-to-earnings ratio is fine, but the prices are inflated because earnings are inflated.

That is all.

Total US income is about $120,000 per year per household. The mean average household produces that much capital value per year. Let’s call that the “economic” middle class. The median average (50th percentile) household receives about $50,000 for its labor. Let’s call that the “demographic” middle class. For comparison, the 85th percentile household receives the mean average $120,000.

What explains the discrepancy between the median “demographic” middle class and the mean “economic” middle class? The typical explanation is social incentive to be innovative, and to not be lazy.

Okay then, let’s take a shining example of innovative labor, a Google employee.

Total Google income is about $630,000 per year per employee, and that is all profit, even after wages are taken out! The median income might be around $120,000. Household income is probably a bit higher, getting to the 90th percentile.

So here is a person in the top 10th percentile demographically, someone who is supposed to be incentivized by the system as an example to follow, more like a top 1% or more. This person’s household is getting slightly above the average household product.

A typical job at Google is what qualifies as an “economic” middle class job, not even upper-middle.

If there is a fiduciary duty for executives to use tax loopholes, then there is also a fiduciary duty to hold all executives liable who did not use tax loopholes. But there are neither of these things. The legal reason is well documented, that executive judgments are part of normal business risk, and that stakeholders are responsible for selecting good management.

Corporate citizenship is a value that is clearly protected by law, as a valid business decision. The law leaves it, rightly, as an ethical consideration. Do we really need a law banning every possible thing we should not do? Do we really want technical legality to dictate our ethical decisions?

People, even as formed in a corporation, have a right to make ethical decisions about legal technicalities, just as anyone who decides how quickly to roll through a stop sign, but we are all socially responsible for our decisions.

Personally, avoiding federal taxes through Ireland is not as much of a concern for me as avoiding local taxes through Nevada, the taxes that pay for education, while complaining that local education is not good enough, so we should open up the H1-B program.

And for the record, I wouldn’t mind the H1-B program opened up if it didn’t have the restrictions that effectively hold beneficiaries hostage to the company, the actual cause of wage pressure that the companies desire. Let’s bring in foreign talent, but as a growing middle class.

One of the main problems of a market economy is that the general public is liable for the damages caused by industry as a whole. For example, if the forestry industry does not look after the forests, then the public ultimately pays the price. If fishermen abuse the fish stock, the public pays the price. If the mining industry pollutes a watershed, the public pays the price.

In my last post, I talked about lawyers taking responsibility for the laws that they create. I realize now that it doesn’t matter what the industry is. If the industry is made liable for its damages, as a whole, through an industry-wide tax, then perhaps the industry will regulate itself to avoid those taxes.

A few nights ago, I had a thought. People who use a public resource, like the airwaves, are often required to set aside a portion of their use to public service. That is why we have news and educational programming on broadcast TV.

What if certification to practice law in a state also came with public service requirements? After all, state hearings and trials may be considered a state resource, a product of the state, and may be managed as such.

What if that public service were designed to create an incentive for lawyers to fight injustice directly? What if lawyers were burdened proportionally by the increased legal burden on The People, rather than only profit from increased legal burden, as it is today? What if they bore the cost of public defense? I am talking a simple addition to checks and balances:

1. Taxes on non-lawyers support public prosecution.
2. Taxes on lawyers support public defense.

All cases where the public bear the burden of prosecution, the legal profession shall bear the burden of defense.

At first, this tax would be passed onto clients, but an incentive is created for the legal profession to lower its tax burden. The legal profession would create interest groups to fight legal costs, and by extension, lower the total legal liabilities in the form of reduced legislation, ensuring a free state. Only laws that lawyers were truly passionate about would remain.

For example, when you get a speeding ticket, you can challenge it with a lawyer of your choosing the same way you choose a doctor. Other lawyers would need to pick up the tab.

The key to this is a design where:

1. Lawyers as individuals will want to take the cases and win them, because each case will pay a decent base plus a win bonus. The base will be increased to satisfy demand. If cases aren’t taken, the base pay will be increased until the cases are taken.
2. Lawyers as a group will want to reduce the cases and case losses because they pay per case, so they will help write law that only cover cases they want to pay for. With great power comes great responsibility.

So, if gun control is a sign of fascism, why aren’t you all fighting the causes of this fascism?

I will call you on this right now. It is because you did not open the history book on the causes of fascism. Instead, you let a fascist do that for you. What he needed was for you to have an enemy. What you wanted was an infographic.

Historicism. This is the first sign of fascism. When an expiring culture seeks to maintain its greatness by calling you to fight for causes of purpose instead of effect, there you will find fascism.

Any political product may be tested by its produce. Measure each by its fruit, not by the depth of its roots.

Gun control is a wedge issue. Laws come and go on this issue, with little real effect, because you somehow are convinced that this is more important to you than the hundred other laws that have great effect on you, to literally steal from you and your children.

Where were you when this happened? Sharing an infographic. But it is not your fault. We know that you are not responsible for creating the new culture that will destroy the fascist culture. No, you are responsible for defending the constitution.

The fascist won’t show you the book that tells that the same Liberals that wrote the constitution believed that laws got their justification from Nature, not some written document, and therefore the concept of defending a constitution would be strange to them.

The history of the Liberal has always been to act in the moment for effect, and later explain the Natural purpose of his actions. That is what is radical about a Liberal. The fascist rallies a people around a purpose for his effect. He does nothing by freedom of independence, and everything by choice of dependence. The fascist is a leader. The Liberal is a man of action. Great cultures always start with a single member. It is failing cultures that are always popular.

It used to be that the sign of greatness was to give. Now, greatness is achieved by taking. Great values became the arbitrage of small values in aggregate. We call this “economy”. I call it “quantity over quality”.

I am tired of every political problem being formulated as some kind of attack on God. I thought we were past that since Jefferson and Madison.

When a culture ascends, it fights for effects. Its appreciation for a cause is based on causality, or the cause-effect relationship. When a culture descends, it fights for each cause that previously had a good effect, but, due to changing conditions, fails to produce the desired effect, causing descent. Wherever there is a cultural preference for the cause-purpose relationship, or teleology, the culture is in decline.

Wedge issues are always sold as a cultural problem. Voters are sold on the terrifying thought of living with another culture.

Yes, most social problems really are cultural problems, but the solution to a cultural problem is never to vote against another culture. Cultural problems, though expressed politically, are never solved politically, for culture cannot be enforced.

Many of my friends have a strong sense of “ressentiment” to go along with a huge ego. I guess if you blame all of your failures on others, you will also be able to credit all of your successes to yourself.

From this observation is a theory on how theology can become a tool for hate. The feeling of righteousness often comes from attributing successes to God while self-identifying with God, but this also requires attributing failure to a worldly devil. Specifically, a devil that works through other, evil people to directly affect your life. And this requires a strong hatred of anyone close to your failures, no matter where they are coming from.

This explains the psychological basis for ascetic personal issues to become cultural attacks. The devil must be external and systematic, therefore it is cultural. Asceticism as Narcissism.

How is it that tariffs were considered essential before globalization, yet tariffs are now considered deprecated after globalization? Free trade agreements between countries with labor disparity have not become less ridiculous! How quickly we forgot effective economic warfare when it became a labor issue.

I have heard a lot of talk lately about being able to persuade outside of a perspective’s base audience.

I think the challenge here is that understanding requires a common experience, known as “common ground”. For example, I am a Nietzschean, but I was a Nietzchean before I read Nietzsche, and Nietzsche himself had explained that he had “right readers”.

Action is what brings the experience necessary to expand common ground. That is why I advocate a tolerance of diversity to the point of allowing its whole practice, for the proof, or disproof, of a thing is in its practice.

But when people share common actions, why do experiences still differ? It is said that people have different values. I argue instead that people have different methods of evaluation. The problem is that methods of evaluation may have philosophical errors that cause misevaluations, where significant meaning is lost in a scenario. This leads to the omission of important values, but not as a cause, but rather as an effect.

The expansion of common ground requires both action and appreciation.

Making money with money is one of the best prospects ever known. Making money with hard work is one of the worst prospects ever known. Why? Returns are based on demand, and money is always in more demand than work because work is for money. Capitalism is therefore inherently aristocratic.

I have always seen organized labor as a logical extension of capitalism because it follows the supply/demand dynamic. Yes, labor could demand more from a company than it can possibly provide, but the same is true about market demands.

When a company fails to satisfy market demands, it is considered a failed business model, but if a company fails to satisfy labor demands, why is it not also considered a failed business model?

Labor knows well that good wages only exist because they are demanded, and that the supply will ultimately satisfy its demands. In fact, capitalist theory states that labor’s demands must be met. That is why organized labor is so feared by capitalists.

Good philosophers have a distinct method to understanding things. They are able to understand things from whatever perspective is offered. They are perspective-independent. This is not to say that philosophers are objective or unbiased, but rather that the bias simply does not matter.

A good philosopher, like Socrates, is so sympathetic to whatever is presented to him that whatever is missing from the bias is revealed as whatever meaning is nullified by rationalization. In this way, The Republic can almost be seen as a political satire of a system gone horribly wrong.

This is why the method of philosophy is always to be sympathetic first, and critical second. The point of being critical is revealed by the sympathy itself.

Usually, this plays out in three stages:

1. The philosopher is introduced to a perspective, studying it intensely, internalizing it.
2. The philosopher lives the perspective casually, working out problems as a matter of course.
3. The philosopher returns to the perspective, studying what meaning was gained and lost by it.

In the end, it is the measuring of perspectives by what meaning is not lost that makes one a philosopher rather than, for example, a scientist.

The idea that there isn’t enough room for a strong middle class disregards all technological advancements in efficiency since the first time a strong middle class existed. From that point on, the possibility of a strong middle class had been demonstrably true. Mass production is the reason for a middle class, not the excuse to centralize the profits of production.

“What would happen if we outlawed causes? … If I am really honest I think God makes it difficult to help. It has to hurt a little. The problem in America is we force it (culturally, and through taxes)”

Rick Dancer

I find the opposite, and I will borrow your main point to demonstrate why.

It is the religious teleology that prefers cause over effect. That you care that stability can come from insurance that spans a lifetime is a cause-oriented thing. It diminishes the role of providence, as a cause, so it is bad.

This most religious nation cannot get past the idea of secular providence, or any means of fairly distributing wealth in effect, even by overall merit, because the most materialistic conception of wealth, also the most unmeritocratic conception of wealth, has a compatibility with the conception that bad decisions must have bad consequences.

To put it simply, the consequences of mankind as a cause must be bad, so the consequences shall be bad: “The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”

The Christian Baby Boomer accuses the poor of feeling entitled to security when it is the Christian that demonstrates his feeling that only he is entitled to demonstrate security, by providence. Providence, to a Christian Baby Boomer, is about being able to prove how righteous he is.

What I see here is Black-Letter Christianity: a man’s entitlement to prove his righteousness is greater than the entitlement the poor have to that righteousness.

He feels that the entitlement to prove righteousness is freedom. But freedom is not about what a man has, rather where a man is. A good environment gives a man his freedom, for what expresses freedom are actions, not choices. A man can choose whatever he wants. It is what he can do that makes him free. That is why democracies are party driven, for they are designed to give you a choice between two bad conditions. What the poor are fighting for are not causes, but effects. It is the religious right that fights for causes to satisfy its teleology.

As a young atheist, I am compelled to teach my elder Christians to be compassionate.

Christianity does not have to be that way. The fight against tax collectors is because the rich get around taxes, and use tax money to enforce materialism and unfairness. When taxes do no such thing, when they are removed from the tainted effects, the taint of tax collection as a cause should also be removed. But it is your teleology that prevents the overcoming of that cause when appropriate.

Teleology is basically the blatant disregard for appropriateness, a disregard for the specifics of a case in favor of a general view that conserves failure and limits progress, a conception favored by the strong becoming weak.

I watch as the minority cultures who have no problem with taxes are also the cultures that help those in need without needing strings attached, because they know that obligation is obligation, and that social obligations exist, and I breathe a sigh of relief that their cultures are demonstrating their strength by overtaking the Imperial culture of Alexander and his Aristotelean teleology.

What is it with some people saying that the working class people just want “free stuff” “handed” to them? And it is usually these same people that are somehow impressed when a non-working class person is able to successfully make money with money.

It seems that the social conservative perspective on anything springs from the belief that Free Will implies that a man can only truly be a victim of himself.

Think about this in relation to gay rights and women’s rights, or any civil right at all. This self-blame is naturally prejudicial in effect because the idea itself is an effect of the conservative valuation that systems and institutions and other generalizations have higher value than individuals and the specifics of their cases, so that the system itself cannot be blamed, about the silliest possible notion to have in politics.

This is called being “principled” or “responsible” or “dutiful”, when it really is just a principle that is only supposed to be followed for the sake of practicality and protocol, and only for the benefit of said individuals and their specific cases.

In The Real World, the specifics of a case always trump the generalities of a case. The socially conservative often appear ignorant to others because conservatives ignore, as a matter of principle, the things that impact the world far more directly than the preconception of a case as a type to be classified by legislation.

This is why jury nullification is so important, and why judges should never instruct the jury to rule on the facts of a case only within the boundaries of legislation. Often times, the facts of the case nullify the law. If the jury doesn’t nullify the law, then the law will end up nullifying the case, and that would be an injustice.

Property, including money, is thought of as an expression of personal freedom. In reality, it is a state-enforced monopoly. Every dollar is a piece of a national resource, its credit, that is monopolized by its holder. It is anti-individualist by its very nature. It is, at best, a representation of interdependence, not independence.

Two men pick the same investments and gain 20% returns. The first man can only afford to invest 1/100th as the second. The same work produces vastly different results.

Why do we speak of returns as earnings? Because “earnings” are what we call the returns gained from work. However, an important part of “to return” is who the subject is returning to.

In a corporation of laborers, managers, and investors, the proportions of capital are distributed based on demand, not work. The gains start out as earnings, but then become capital, a representation of something entirely different than earnings. Therefore, it is inappropriate to refer to capital gains as earnings entirely attributable to the investor. Yes, some of the earnings gained are attributable to the investor, depending on the amount of work the investor put into production, but not all of the earnings gained.

In fact, if all of the gains of an investment had to be earned, it would be considered a horrible investment!

Evolution isn’t about the development of complex systems. It is about the progression of simple aesthetic entities within complex environments.

It isn’t a two party system. It is a race to the bottom where the solution to maintaining power is the active misfortune of all others: the pre-democratic system, the system of priests and coronations.

One day, people will realize that wealth redistribution is the effect of property, by design from long before democracy, and start thinking in terms of de facto redistribution. Taxing income was supposed to be the solution, but corporatism changed that.

We must tax only patents (in the original sense of the word). Tax all government granted monopolies, and that includes capital gains because capital is and always has been a type of patent.

Only allow corporations to deal in a single type of patent. This breaks up the spectrum owners from the content owners from the land owners from the data owners, etc. Industries will be clearly defined and competition will become healthy again. Taxes will be directly tied to government-enforced wealth again. The middle class will rise again. Democracy will be in power again.

Let me make myself clear. In a capitalism, we must make this very simple distinction:

1. income distribution == good, creates demand;
2. wealth distribution == bad, destroys demand.

Jobs are created from demand. Supply always follows demand.

Wealth accumulation is a side effect of the patent on property, and is a form of wealth redistribution. A flat tax on patents is how to have a progressive tax in effect without having a progressive tax on merit! It satisfies both the right and the left!

The leadership failures in the US today seem very related to the leadership failures of the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation.

1. We have a few very large organizations exerting political control over many states through an apologetics of a false dogma of morality. – Before, it was Catholicism as Christianity. Today, it is corporate welfare as free market capitalism, and an electoral system with corporate-bought candidacy as a representative democracy.
2. We have a large de facto transfer of wealth from labor to the idle government-issued-property-owners who have no other means of income because they have unsustainably depleted the natural resources of their lands to the point of exhaustion, leading to an increase in imperialism, proxy wars, and economic warfare. – Before, it was Europe’s depletion of precious metals. Today, it is America’s depletion of oil and rare earth metals.
3. We have brought back thought crimes and torture as a means of prosecuting thought crimes, bringing back the concept of peace-time treason. – Before, it was heresy that fought corruption by disclosing scripture. Today, it is treason that fights corruption by disclosing classified documents — both a disclosure of rationale, the base of all political scandals.

To understand this problem, It is important to observe two things and their relationship:

1. The system and process by which governments grant “property rights”. – This includes the formation of corporations, any kind of land use or mining rights, any kind of property, including intellectual, any kind of spectrum allocations, and any kind of government contract.
2. The fact that industries involving the new allocation of these “rights” are the only growth industries. – This includes the financial, military, and telecom industries. Commodities are only doing okay due to the massive inflation used to prop up the “growth” industries.

Why is it that the money going into the financial industry is not getting invested in community development? Because there is a political environment that makes it much cheaper to buy government “rights” than to develop sustainable communities with long-term production capabilities. The end result is massive corporate consolidation to unify the “rights” already bought, and a stagnant economy unable to use resources properly.

The problem is not unearned power. The problem is unspent power. Leadership is the application of power to develop conditions that replenish power. The financial industry is supposed to be the medium through which capital power is applied. The failed conditions are proof of that failure of leadership.

A major problem the financial industry often faces is that its domain analysis is terrible, and it lowers its dependency on analysis by helping consolidate companies to lower competition, so they don’t have to be good at analysis. The big companies are horrible at innovation, usually just acting as analysts to determine who to buy out. But again, the same problem exists that people with no creative abilities are analysts. At least Buffett looks at something he knows: management. He is wildly successful just by actually looking at a single aspect of a company. Today, most trading is done by computer algorithms, but all that is is a decent programmer with decent capital.

There are simple systematic solutions for these types of problems. For example:

1. Require federal laws to cover only a single subject, as is done in many states. This simple step exponentially increases the cost of buying politicians.
2. Tax the sale of advertising on ballot items at 100%, to fund elections while preserving free speech.
3. Legislative districts must be derived by fixed formulas operating on survey data, solving for low variance.
4. Require corporations to only own (or license?) a single type of property at a time. The grant of radio spectrum releases any copyrights or patents, separating ISPs from device makers and content owners.
5. Link patent space with trademark space and the new property-type space. Patents can only apply to industry-specific applications.
6. Ideas are not patentable. Only applications of ideas are patentable. Only expressions of ideas are copyrightable. Expressions of applications are not copyrightable. They must be patented. Something cannot be copyrightable and patentable at the same time.
7. Stocks may only be bought and sold by an entity (person or corporation) in a single cycle per quarter.

There is a whole generation out there believing that the living-wage non-union job they had was paying wage on merit, when it merely was paying the wage made standard by the abundance of union jobs. The wages of today falsify that hypothesis. Every capitalist knows that payments are only ever paid to satisfy demand. Thus, living wages may only exist by demand.

When fairness is mentioned in politics, it is always in opposition to cultivation. When fairness is mentioned by the privileged, it is always in opposition to the cultivation of the unprivileged. Freedom, as opportunity, is inherently unfair to inheritance and privilege. The opportunity of those with privilege is an expression of power, not freedom. That is why freedom must continually be fought for by the unprivileged.

Freedom is what opposes unearned power. It is the striving for power in the cultivation of greatness by design rather than by accident: freedom as “the will to power”. Nature alone can design by accident. There will always be “Great Dynasties”. But what we seek is rare: “Great Cultures”. The People must choose: domestication or cultivation?

How is it known that homosexuality is a wedge issue? That it is opposed without opposing all who stand to gain by its opposition.

There they stand, baptizing themselves in a sea of judgement, praying for a golden calf to hold up their Bibles, casting Eastern shadows. Their dawn has long since passed.

A man appears to them from out of their shadows, toward what remains of their daylight. He gives them one last opportunity to pass the torch before night falls, to make one last sacrifice, the kind they speak of most: a purge.

“Shall Congress be tested in the same manner as Sodom? How many righteous remain? 50? 10?”

Capitalist libertarians, I have a question for you. If the only job of the government should be to protect Life and Property (even defense falls under this), shouldn’t the only taxes be Property (wealth) taxes (flat percentage), and a flat tax per life (life formulated as property)? Sales and income taxes are thought of as anti-progressive, but perhaps they actually aren’t when wealth is properly taxed.

It seems that there is a lot in common between the lawyer and the priest: dogmatic, institutional, authoritarian, ordained, classifier of people, creator of taxes, usurper of major life events, spoiler of life, advocate of liability.

These dialecticians toward authoritative duty, away from personal integrity, are the same type. Their height in rationality is merely a prerequisite for the logical distance their arguments repel from reality.

It turns out that the separation of church and state is really about the struggle for power by the legal class vs. the priestly class.