Burning Flags

I maintain a strong respect for Thomas Jefferson, but I have no moral obligation to his country. I am ever grateful that George Washington was not a king, but I am not loyal to his geographical boundaries. I would protect my just brother in war, but I would not protect the image of his state. I would not have a single state, and I will give voice to none. 

I would not have a border, and I will not maintain a difference. A mexican is an american is a britain is a somalian is a mongolian is a korean is an anything. What bigoted man believes there is a noteworthy difference? 

A black man is not a white man, and he doesn’t want to be one. Men are not women and their brains are not alike. Countries are not their people and people are not their countries. There is a sufficient mix of everything everywhere for everything to be anywhere. 

Calm down and relax. Prosperous people work and play. They love and they are loved. The wise ones engage in complex social interactions that bring both stability and peace. Please don’t infer that the government should be credited for the virtues of the people and the people’s heroes. 

When there is no government the people will still have leaders. When there is no state there will still be law. When there are no borders there will still be property lines. Everything will be about the same. The difference, we will be a little better.

Blinking Goverment

I’m going to take time away from what I should be doing (reading up on power systems) and discuss my views on government instead.

There should be no federal government. The national level should not exist. The state level should not exist. Borders should not exist. We’d be better off without county lines and city limits. If the United States were a moral people, the only borders would be the Canadian borders and the Mexican borders. There would be no United States, but a United people, a world people. Canada and Mexico would have no power over us and we would be free.

Oh, but I believe in government. I believe in subscribing to government. I would purchase my government. I would leave my government for a better government without leaving my home. I would pay for protection and be protected. I would be free.

My chosen government would bargain with the power company for me. The road companies would solicit my chosen government or me for my business. I would be free to drive anywhere people desire my government’s or my money. Utility providers would succumb to collective bargaining on the private market.

Would there be coercion? Yes. Power companies would be coerced into reasonable prices. Critical paths and roads would be protected by the coercion of the majority while provided at a profit by capitalists. The threat of force would be available at all times, but resorted to rarely. You see, we would form mutually beneficial relationships.

Oil companies would muse over private warfare in Iraq, but the capitalistic military providers would sell Iraqi protection. War would be more costly than trade. Exporting weapons at a profit would be synonymous to “national” security. Profit seeking weapon providers would bring the world more peace, not less.

Terrorists... more people are murdered by your neighbors than by terrorists. Both are murder, and both would be “punished.” Safety would be insured by prisons that charge your selected government money to operate. Rule of law would be supported by appeals to private judiciary bodies. Either governments would subscribe to third party justice systems or individuals would solicit protection.

You see, order exists naturally. We aren’t free because we live in a rigid traditional system. We aren’t safe because we have fixed government police or officials. People communicate and work things out. Order emerges naturally. I’d rather be free to choose mine.

An Attempt at Philosophy

On any specific subject I am at least partially incorrect. Anything I understand, I comprehend imperfectly.

Environmental constraints control probable change. Any environment exists within a larger environment. If there is any boundary containing the entire universe, the entire universe’s environment is absolutely nothing. Since an environment of absolutely nothing is within an environment of absolutely nothing, nothing can be gained from discussing it further.

An environment surrounds at least one item. Unless an item is infinitely small or infinitely pure, it can be considered more than one item. If an item was infinitely small, it would not exist. If it were infinitely pure, I would get confused. Nothing can exist that does not have an environment. Something might exist that does not contain an item (other than itself), and thus is not an environment. If so, the something is infinitely pure.

If the universe has an environment of nothing it is not affected by its environment. If an infinitely pure item exists, it contains an infinite amount of identical points that are infinitely small. If all space that wasn’t nothing was purely the same, the center point would be affected differently than any other point. (Assume points affect all other points.) Perhaps, this would cause the center to undergo change unequal to all other points of interest. Uniformity would be impossible.

This is definitely not poetry. I don't even like poetry.

Imagine, having direct control over every unit in your body. Suppose you were required to think every heartbeat in order to stay alive. What if every eye blink required conscious deliberate action? What if you accidentally died, because you forgot to stay alive.

You do not think. You really don’t. Your environment becomes internal. As the outside enters in it warps, it wobbles and smears. As it runs back out through hands and mouth, you feel it as it does. You call it choice. I do not.

Alternatives fight within you. You feel them as they do. Did you ever stop to think there’s more to you than you. Another section of the brain may not feel the same.

The interconnected yous of you are true.

Alternatives to the Federal Reserve

Our economy is amazing. Americans are linked to China, Germany, and Japan by the things we buy and sell. This stabilizing force of international cooperation needs to be anchored on something more secure than the U. S. dollar or any other form of government currency.

Bitcoin is a digital currency that supports transactions directly between two individuals without the support of a bank or third party. It is open source, meaning the software is transparent and free. Regardless of whether bitcoin is a worthy currency, the idea is imperative to the stabilization and economic liberty of the world.

The banking system of the Untited States currently operates on the principle that some bankers are so freakin’ smart that they can decide what the ideal interest rate should be. No one entity is that smart.

I would rather have digital gold. Digital gold would be something so widely accepted that almost everyone uses it, a fixed quantity. It would be a computer program that cannot increase the money supply and still remain part of the same program. Thus, it would not remain the same currency.

Private banking systems could easily set atop digital gold systems. A private bank invents it’s own separate currency out of thin air. The advantage is that debt can create even more money through loans. When the debt falls and the loans fail, we would still have digital gold. We would still be free, with a separate loan free currency.

Apple and Unrelated Food

I am deeply troubled that the ideals I value are not treasured by our people. I don’t want to give some vague sense that, as a nation, we aren’t what we’re ‘spose to be. We’re not, but I want individuals to realize what’s important, effective, and powerful. I want people to have more than a naive understanding of liberty. I’ll start with patents. Apple is abusing it’s power through litigation.

Governments become a harmful force to the consumer when they hinder competition to provide goods and services by enforcing patent laws. If a person has an innovative idea to serve the end consumer, they should not have to consult the government. Charging other people for an idea they might have easily thought up or discovered themselves is flopdoodle. 

Government giving anyone money is flopdoodle, really. If my neighbor is starving (without food stamps) he’ll come to me for help. This makes me feel needed, and creates a bond of friendship. It builds communities at the local level.

Honestly, I’m not excited about my neighbor coming to me, but I’d help. Why are we comfortable with the government redistributing? Mass redistribution causes price increases in the grocery store. Only handout to the truly hurting. 

In short, the principal is liberty. Take the smallest individual and maximize his liberty. Do this mutually for all individuals and you have a free economy. We are not free. Money is efficient sharing. We have converted it into efficient stealing.

Infinite Demand

I love the free market, but am baffled by it. When we are so efficient at providing goods and services, how can everyone be employed? They're not all employed, but even now, most are.

Excessive material consumption is bad. There is a limited amount of oil and coal for example. Keeping material possessions at a minimum is a positive ideal. Lowering this consumption minimizes an individuals environmental impact.

The question, is a free market system sustainable without evil over consumption and disposal of physical objects? I'll look at what I own and buy, because I think I live at a minimum (materially).

Okay, so I have a netbook. It is about the most technologically advanced thing there is. Making this tiny object employs a lot of people. Perhaps, there is a way to consume less material, and still provide demand for private sector jobs.

I have to know everything. Math is important to me. I suppose by demanding an education I create demand for all those who support it. Maybe there are jobs there. No material consumed, but wait. We just created an entire college campus, I guess the environment is doomed :)

In all fairness, I have a small Metro. I'm using it to destroy our air. I'd have to say that my environmental footprint is considerable, but I've come to one conclusion... My desire to do things with my life, even things that do not create physical objects, demands a lot.

This infinite demand will create nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and innovation. Things that don't necessarily generate high volume trash.

But what happens to the educationally lazy? Entertainment, its a phenomena, but I think everyone is okay. I think we can create demand without demanding material. The economy is sustainable. The service industry makes us rich, not manufacturing.