The abiding principle of the Rule of Law

This isn’t any doubt that societies must have a Rule of Law, for in the absence of such, there is tyranny, oppression, and pretty much those who have power taking advantage of those who are powerless.  That said, not just any law is a good and just law, for those laws that are not fair, logical, purposeful, meaningful, and are both equally and consistently applied, are therefore considered to not be in harmony with what the Rule of Law is constructed around.  Indeed, the Rule of Law necessitates the basic premise, that nobody, and no institution, is above that law, for it applies equally to all, high or low, well-connected or not, and further to the point, those with power, influence, and money, are with a vigorous and vibrant Rule of Law, definitely accountable to those same laws.  In other words, the Rule of Law, in order for the people to have respect for it, and therefore obedience to such, must consist of laws that are sensible, fair, necessary, and are also no respecter of persons.

Regrettably, there probably isn’t a society in which the Rule of Law, is actually equally applied to all, for people and institutions have a habit of creating good laws, but within those same laws, there are certain people and institutions, that are treated more favorably and therefore differently than the general public, which thereupon is detrimental to the good governance of those same people, for whenever a specific law is applied in one way to one person, but another way to another person, in which the upshot is that there is a distinct inconsistency between the two when it comes to the justice of such -- that therefore the law is thereby being capriciously interpreted, so done in a manner in which those who are outside the power structures of the day are, for instance, treated far more harshly than those, that are within that power structure, thus signifying that the Rule of Law isn’t operating correctly.

We live in a society, in which we are told to obey the law, but that law is unequally applied, of which, for all intents and purposes, some seem to have impunity to certain aspects of the law and are thus never held to account for it. This, therefore, signifies that the law is basically being used as a cudgel against certain elements of society, while not being enforced against others.  In a just society, there is a Rule of Law that applies to everyone, and all those who are accustomed to favorable treatment or believe that their status provides them with a perpetual “get out of jail” card, should recognize that whenever the law is not being appropriately applied to them, then it shouldn’t be applying to anyone else either, for at least then, it would be consistent.

The abiding principle of the Rule of Law is that nobody or no institution is above the law – for when that sensible rule is broken there effectively is hypocrisy, dishonesty, injustice, and unfairness, which makes for a society that will not respect the law because the law does not respect them.

Catholic Labor Schools

There was a time in America, in which, the government, especially through the leadership of FDR, was actively involved in the promotion and the recognition of the necessity of labor unions so that by advocating for better working conditions and better pay for those laboring, there would be far less civil unrest and far more civil satisfaction. This signified that those who labored honestly had therefore the fair opportunity to gain for themselves the opportunity for home ownership and a good life.  In other words, the government recognized that extreme income and wealth disparity was not good or healthy for a democracy, along with the salient fact that the corporate profits should be more equally distributed, and thus take into account, the mainstream employees of those corporations.

In the recognition that in numbers there can be strength, and further to the point, that in the education of the worker's legal rights, there is the strength to face one’s employer, we find that the Catholic religion understood the value of workers being organized as well as the need to know their union rights and the importance therefore of a vibrant union so as to put teeth behind the Wagner Act, which guaranteed the right of private sector employees to become unionized, as well as to engage in collective bargaining with their employer, and as necessary, to take united action as in a strike.  Further to the point, American governance permitted individuals and encouraged them to organize themselves into unions, so that they would in unison, have a seat at the table with their employer, so as to better negotiate with their employer, for fair worker compensation. So too, progressive Catholicism believed that their constituency deserved an opportunity to be fairly compensated as well as to know their rights to a union, of which, Catholic labor schools were a material aid in helping workers to know and therefore to effect those rights for their benefit, and the benefit of society, overall.

In truth, powerful corporations do not need any governmental agency or mass media to champion their cause for profits, for they already have enough power and influence to begin with.  Rather, those who need to get a piece of the action, are those un-championed workers who are employed, and who require such employment in order to have some reasonable hope to achieve the American dream, of which, the best way to accomplish such is to take governmental laws created for this very purpose, in conjunction with organizations such as the Catholic labor schools, to effect the change which would make their lives better.  Indeed, it is one thing to preach the Word, and it is another thing to recognize that the Word, in actuality, is not going to be good enough to feed, shelter, and provide gainful employment -- so Catholicism understood well that because an individual looking for a job, or already working at a job, would not have close to equal power to that which would employ them, that only collective bargaining, and an engaged union, that asserted those rights on behalf of present employees, as well as employees of the future, could provide these employees with the overall pay package which would fairly compensate them.  Therefore, the Catholic labor schools did their part to be an integral part of this happening and contributed in their own way to the rise of labor unions which materially benefited the middle class of America.

"A slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts"

The above quotation comes to us by Euripides the great tragedian of classical Athens.  Though Euripides lived some two and a half thousand years ago, his wisdom is as timely today as it was back then.  It seems that most of the time when we think of slavery, we picture such as the physical control and thereby the suppression of the body by the other, and not so much that those who control what we say and attempt to control what we think, are effectively also making slaves of the sovereignty of our mind.  We live in a day and age in which humankind has innovated to the stage in which individuals are subject to relentless social pressure, social norms, propaganda, social monitoring, and social controls of all sorts so that many of us are being manipulated into behaving and therefore thinking in a way and manner that conforms to those that desire that groupthink be impressed upon certain members of society, as contrasted to having to deal with the cacophony of individual sovereignty.

We are, as individuals, entitled with the unalienable right to think the thoughts that we wish to think, and further to the point, to freely express those thoughts, and when those in authority make it their point to suppress such, then we have lost the most important freedom that we have, for a human being that does not have agency of their mind, is no longer truly human.  So too, the nature of freedom is such that because we are created with free will and free thought, it signifies that all that we think, say, and do, is not going to be necessarily in conformance to that which orthodox society desires, or of that which the governance demands and wishes.  That though is the nature of living in a society in which we are entitled to express ourselves through our free thinking, and for all those who wish to live in a construct that does not infringe upon our free-thinking, then that construct must be constructed in a way and manner, that foremost protects and defends our right to think our own thoughts.

Indeed, just because we are created to be a free-thinking individual, does not necessarily mean that we can’t have a harmonious society, for the truth of the matter is, that those who believe it cannot occur, are the very same who utilize suppression, coercion, and force in their attempt to control the minds of the people, which because of this structure, necessitates therefore the sacrifice of freedom for conformity.  Rather, a far better way, along with this way being in conformance with our unalienable rights is to provide the avenue that permits people to voluntarily come together for the betterment of not only those people but for society, at large, which because this alliance is freely given, supports not only physical freedom but the freedom of the mind.  It is vital, therefore, that any time that we see that our ability and our natural right to speak our own thoughts are being suppressed, that this should be seen for what it is – an assault on our sovereignty, and an infringement upon our unalienable rights, and all those that support these actions, are those that believe that dominance should trump free expression and free thinking.

It takes a family

When we take a careful look at society as it is at present in America, it’s important to ask the question as to whether or not our society is getting more civil, more caring, more just, and more compassionate to one another, or if it is becoming more uncivil and worse in its behavior.  The answer to that question leans heavily to the appearance that the civility in our society is in a steep decline and that the dysfunction in too many of our relationships is getting ever worse, which begs the question as to why.

The seminal reason why civility is on the decline has got to be the fact that our family structure has gotten progressively more stressed and worse overall -- so that never have there been so many children brought up in homes, which because these are primarily single-parent households, who often are under financial and workplace stress, find it difficult to be the parent that they really desire to be, because they have more than enough that they need to handle, already.  This thus signifies that the support that a healthy nuclear family is structured around, is typically frayed for those who are single parents, as well as this being the case for those who do not have a caring relationship with their significant other.  So too, that lack of cohesion of the adults within a family structure, is detrimental to the security, warmth, and love that children require so as to best become well-developed young adults.

Those children then that are brought up in environments in which emotional support is lacking are obviously going to have a more difficult time being a good and productive student, and the way to address this issue is for this nation, to make it their point, therefore, to concentrate on being of real aid to families, no matter their structure, so that the family atmosphere will thereby be more conducive to developing a vibrant and healthy household.

Further to the point, when any family structure, struggles to provide their children with the necessary accouterments for their emotional and educational success, in addition to the infrastructure that surrounds them, not being of the quality that supports such success, then the end result is going to be the type of disappointment that we see far too often within America.  So too, the problems that families have in bringing up their children will spill over into society, itself, for those children that do not have the emotional support and guidance to direct their energies into that which is beneficial for themselves as well as for society, are going to ultimately present that society with the task of correcting or dealing with it, instead.

Those who are born into a good family structure, are the very same, which are presented with the best opportunity to develop into productive and good citizens, which thereby makes the point that this nation needs to put forth the effort to understand better that the best environment for a child is going to be a loving environment, which is best enabled when the parent(s) have the necessary tools and aid to accomplish this on behalf of their children, by pro-actively supporting families, so done for the greater good of society and our nation.

“The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society”

The above quotation comes from President Kennedy's address to the Newspaper Publishers Association in April 1961.  Somehow, in the ensuing years, this nation has forgotten that its purpose is to be a nation of, for, and by the people, which thereby signifies that the people have the inherent right to know what their governance is actually doing on their behalf. Indeed, the people need to know the actuality of what is so happening, so that they can thereby debate the merits or demerits of such.  Instead, we live within a construct, of which, never have there been more secrets, more opaqueness, and more deceit by our government, than we so see today, and because of this, the people for the most part, not only do not have the full information that they need to ascertain and to make an informed opinion about this, but they are for the most part, being deliberately left out of the equation, and considered therefore to be an irrelevancy.

No nation can progress as a free and independent republic, when the very people that such a government is supposed to serve, are not forthcoming to that public.  To believe, somehow, that those who are in authority know better than we, the people, is to discount the value of the people, and to thereby take away their democratic voice, and in conjunction with that, to vacate the very unalienable rights which are theirs, in perpetuity.

In today’s America, we would be hard-pressed to have any President address their dismay at the secrets being kept from that society, but this seems to be the standard practice of the day, enabled further, by a compliant mainstream press, which does not desire to engage the administration by probing questions of import, but rather seems to serve, often, as an echo chamber, for the administration.

When the public is consistently left in the dark, about those matters of most importance, then those who are its citizens are not really citizens, at all, but rather are better defined as subjects, who are meant to keep their noses to the grindstone, and basically to obey what those that are the pinnacles of power, tell them that they must do.  Further, the people of America, seem to be in an unenviable position, in which they should trust that their government is acting on their behalf, without having actionable information to verify such or to even examine its merits.

The people are the conscience of the nation, and deserve to have their voice, for those who are our representatives in this governance, are supposed to serve the general public, for the general welfare of that public, but whenever the people are precluded from really knowing what is going on, this then becomes a situation in which the government that we believe that stands for certain valued principles, has been overtaken by an overly secretive counterfeit government, which has no Constitutional legitimacy. To have a free and open society necessitates that the people are cognizant and vividly aware of what their government is up to, by that government being not only transparent to the people but also by that government, recognizing that its true validity can only occur when a well-informed public has its say.

Daily worker pay

We read in the Holy Scripture: “In his day you shall give him his wages, neither shall the sun go down on it…” (Deuteronomy 24:14).  Indeed, as much as those back in the day, both needed and desired to get paid their wages at the end of the day, we find that there are many Americans that need and desire to get their wages at the end of the present day, as well.  After all, as it currently stands, the vast majority of companies pay their employees either weekly, bi-weekly, twice a month, or even just monthly – yet, people have bills and responsibilities to attend to that would seemingly necessitate their fair and reasonable need to the wages of the work that they have already accomplished so that they can attend to this very thing.

Fortunately, we live in a day and age, in which smartphones, in conjunction with computers, payroll programs, and banking institutions, are quite capable of being coordinated together, so that, those with the correct smartphone application, and an employer who has set up a process that employees can draw into, permits these same employees to use that application tied to their smartphone, which is thereby connected to their bank as well as to their employer, that permits these employees at their discretion to transfer their wages or a portion, so of, earned during their shift to their bank account, that very same day.

While there is always a concern that people taking advantage of getting their daily pay, will thus find themselves dismayed that their weekly paycheck, no longer contains much of anything, they need to understand, that those who do the work, deserve to be timely paid, and to the degree that employers can readily accommodate those that are their employees, then in fairness, it could be said, that they have done right by their employees, and how then those employees thereupon spend their money so earned, wisely or unwisely, is not really their concern.

Indeed, another way of looking at daily pay, as compared to getting a weekly or bi-weekly paycheck, is that this provides the employee with the money that they have already earned promptly, and therefore provides that employee with the option to do with that money whatever that they so desire, of which, many a time, employees find themselves being caught short in regards to a particular bill, of which, daily pay can circumvent them, therefore, from having to borrow money from a friend, or even much worse, from some short-term loan application company.  So then, in fairness, employers should desire to do their good part to accommodate their employees, and if those same employers feel the need for employees to go through some basic daily pay video, that purports to point out the advantages and disadvantages of such, let that so be the case, for at the end of the day, people who have labored, should rightly be entitled to the money that they have earned, for in all candor, it is the employer obligation to those employees, to pay them in a timely manner and when this can be done through a process that the employee controls, appreciates, and values, so much the better.

Our quest for self-esteem

Most of us desire to have positive self-esteem, and because this is true, we find that when our self-esteem has been hurt or damaged, we endeavor to try to fix it, so that we can feel better about ourselves and our situation.  Therefore, when we have done wrong to someone and internally recognize that wrong, but are unable to receive from the person that we have hurt, that they subsequently forgive us, or are willing to work with us to correct such so as to work things out, this damages our self-esteem because we often feel that we cannot get back our self-respect, if the other person doesn’t value or respect us enough, to give us the fair opportunity to return to the level that we had previously been accustomed to with them.  This is why it is essential in any interaction, that has gone wrong, of which, we recognize that we are the ones primarily in error, that we are to a large extent, at the mercy of the other, for we seek their forgiveness and acceptance, that when received, will thus reinvigorate our self-esteem and get us back to the place that we desire to be.  Indeed, this is why it has been said, “to err is human, to forgive divine,” which represents the seminal fact that we yearn for acceptance from our peers, especially when we have let them down, and desire greatly to be accepted again, to be therefore back in their good graces, as if no wrong had been committed.

So too, there are those times when we do not receive forgiveness or pardon for the errors and wrongs that we have done, and when we believe that it does not seem possible that we will ever get that forgiveness so that we can re-obtain that self-esteem -- a part of us will often wish to avenge this loss, by striking out therefore against society in a way and manner, in which we can re-validate ourselves so as to get our self-esteem back.  In other words, when we have done something wrong, and get no sympathy or forgiveness in return, there is a tendency for some of us, to only mope about for a finite amount of time, before determining that because society is so unforgiving, that we may as well do what we have to do, to make our mark upon that society, to our satisfaction.

To believe that somehow self-esteem isn’t all that important is to misunderstand human nature.  Because we are social creatures it is vital for just about all of us, to be approved by the society that we are a member of, and in consideration that all of us are imperfect and that learning is a process, that can easily entail missteps and mistakes, we yearn to be a member of a society, that will take into consideration that though we may have done wrong, that we are not always in the wrong, but have within us, the capability of doing things right, and when we receive encouragement to do the right thing and are not judged too harshly when in error, this thereby provides us with the room to grow, and the opportunity then to reclaim our self-esteem for our benefit, as well as this being of benefit to society, at large.

“No right is held more sacred…”

The following quotation comes from the Supreme Court ruling of 1891, of Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Botsford, of which, the opinion of the Supreme Court stated the following: “No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.”  That is to say, each one of us who lives in America, is in control of their own personhood and therefore has the right to be left alone, subject to no interference from others, unless so superseded by that which represents the clear and unquestionable authority of law.

Yet, somehow we live in a day and age, in which our right to privacy and to be left alone seems to be assailed by not only secretive and not-so-secretive governmental agencies but also by invasive private enterprise corporations, as well.  Therefore, this signifies that the belief that a man’s home is their castle, or that an individual should simply be permitted to be about their business without having to justify or explain such, and to thereby not be monitored, nor to be regulated, seems to no longer be part and parcel of the American experience, whatsoever.

Indeed, those who do not seemingly have the right to their own sovereignty, are by definition, not free.  While it is true that people can relinquish whatever freedoms that are theirs to other parties, this though needs to be done without coercion and voluntarily; for it is always true that our freedom to our own personhood, is our unalienable right, that should not be assailed by any other entity or governmental agency, except under the exigencies of the law, properly applied.

We live in a day and age in which the people are constantly ceding ground of that which is unalienable, through the invasive ability of high-technology monitoring to know just about everything about us, either unwittingly or wittingly.  While it is bad enough, that this information is being stored and perused, it is even worse when such information is interfering with our privacy in a way and manner that we are compromised or exposed or coerced so as to be possibly placed in the unenviable position to conform with whatever governmental agencies or other enterprises desire from us or suffer the ill consequences, so of.

To be free from interference from others, and to go about our business as our personal business, without meddling from outside agencies, should be our protected right, as American citizens, and further to the point this right is unalienable, for if we do not have the right to be left alone, or to have our privacy, and to thereby own our thoughts, then we are certainly not free.  This is why it is important that appropriate legislation be passed that protects the general public from governmental agencies of all sorts, as well as from private enterprise, so that in its effect, we, as a people, remain the unquestionable masters of our identity, and that all those who interfere in such or intend to interfere, are thereby held accountable, for the lasting protection of our own personhood.

"My body, my choice"

When it comes to pro-choice slogans, we find that “my body, my choice,” is mainly known for women believing wholeheartedly that they are the masters of their own bodies and therefore, the choice of abortion is theirs to make, and should not be precluded by governmental interference, whatsoever.  It should be added, that for all those who truly believe that their body, therefore provides them with the choice to do with their body what they so desire, that this then would obviously encompass many more choices than just abortion.  For instance, those who claim self-ownership of their body would logically believe then that what we so choose to ingest into our body, that is either licit or illicit is our choice as well.  So too, for those who determine that they no longer desire to be in this world, that choice would be theirs to own.  Also, for those desiring to monetize their body by the presentation of such, or in consensual engagements with another for a monetary price or its equivalency, would own that right, too.

In other words, my body being my choice, must include the complete autonomy of that body, and the decisions that we make, good or bad, wise or unwise, that we thereupon decide to do with the body that we own is at our discretion.  While society certainly has its role to play, and whereas that society is definitely entitled to weigh in as to what it believes is the best usage of our body, it does not though, trump our own individual decision-making as an adult, because as long as what we do with our body does not clearly interfere with or supersede another person’s unalienable right, then our ownership of our body trumps whatever society may seemingly prefer for us to do with it.

Indeed, this world would be better off if more people actually believed that their body was their choice, for to believe that it is not, reflects that our body is subservient to some other entity, such as the government or society, and therefore it is up to these entities to determine what we may or may not do with our body, which should clearly be seen as an infringement upon our sovereignty.  That is to say, either we are the masters of our own bodies or else we are not, for there cannot be any in-between or equivocation upon this important issue.

It is vital to remember, that our existence did not come forth from our government, nor did it come forth from society, but rather all of us were created by the very same Creator, of which, that Creator has gifted each and every one of us with the free-will to be about our business, and therefore what we decide to do with our body, and the decisions that we make, is entirely within our domain and remains our lifetime responsibility. In life, people and societies are entitled to have their say, but at the end of the day, it is our body, and therefore our choice, what we will or will not do with such, and those that recognize this are the very same that understand that with this awesome freedom, comes consequences, that we are therefore the accountable owners of.

Carried interest is not taxed appropriately

When it comes to our progressive income tax structure and taxation, it must be said that our tax system is fundamentally failing the American public, for the very wealthy entities that should be paying a much higher percentage of their monies into our tax system, are the very same, that are quite gifted at avoiding paying their full freight.  What is especially annoying and very telling, is that a tiny portion of Americans are able to take advantage of the carried interest loophole to pay thereby not even close to what they should be paying in regards to a fair and appropriate tax. The entities taking advantage of this carried interest, are private equity associations, venture capital groups, and hedge funds – which represent not only people and entities that the vast majority of Americans are not intimately familiar with but also represent the very institutions that could readily pay their fair share in taxes but do not, because of this carried interest exception.

The long and short of carried interest is that the compensation that these hedge fund members get, is somehow re-categorized into representing long-term capital gains as compared to ordinary income, of which, ordinary income for hi-income people is at a substantially higher tax rate than capital gains.  So, because the maximum long-term capital gain is a mere 20%, whereas ordinary income is taxed as high as 37%, those that are in the hedge fund business are somehow permitted to have their income categorized as a capital gain, which thereupon provides them with the savings in aggregate, of billions of tax dollars.

The crux of the problem with carried interest and why it needs to be eliminated posthaste is that the percentage of Americans that are able to take advantage of carried interest is minuscule, but the fact that these institutions are able to utilize carried interest to substantially reduce their taxes, represents as reported by ourfinancialsecurity.org, “between $1.4 billion and $18 billion annually,” of savings in taxes -- that private equity companies, venture capitalists, and hedge funds are able to circumvent, to the ultimate unfairness of ordinary Americans.

Indeed, for all those who want to know as to whether or not our tax system is fair, look no further than to the carried interest loophole, in which the very few are the beneficiaries at the expense of the people and this government of, for, and by the people.  The fact that this is so, clearly represents that those who have lots of money and influence are able to get their way, again and again; whereas, those who play by the rules are burdened ever more with taxes, and the deficits that this government consistently runs, are placed upon the shoulders of the current generation, as well as generations, yet unborn.  In truth, when it comes to tax reform, it is an absolute certainty, that if the carried interest exception cannot be eliminated from our tax code, then a tax code that is fair and progressive does not truly exist, for in this nation, because of all the tax exceptions so made on behalf of the biggest and most powerful corporations, as well as to individuals of massive wealth, these privileged entities do not pay their fair taxation share.

Should Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) at .08% be per se DUI?

In October of 2000, President Clinton signed into law that the new limit of .08% BAC would be considered to be per se impairment with significant penalties for all drivers that were at this limit or exceeding such.  The first thing to be noted is that because the law states that .08% is impairment, it does not matter, nor is it relevant, how well that a given person conducts themselves, or demonstrates their control of their faculties because per se means “the thing speaks for itself.”  So then, drivers who have a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher are Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  The second thing to note is that back in the 1970s, the BAC rate for impairment was .15%, which bespeaks the question as to how did it come to this current point of a DUI being considerably lower.

When it comes to per se impairment, the very first thing that needs to be determined through scientific tests that accurately measure such is whether or not, .08% is actually impairment, or whether or not that number should be adjusted either higher or lower.  That is to say, as it currently stands, impairment is .08% BAC but since this law was passed in 2000, and scientists and institutions are always in the process of improvement and advancement, it would certainly seem to be high time to determine or re-determine what is or is not impairment because the legal definition of alcoholic impairment should be accurate and without equivocation.

It could be said and it should be said that alcohol is going to affect different people in different ways, but ignoring that, for the simplicity of a blood alcohol test, is perhaps fine, as long as there has been a series of tests, consisting of a control group who have had no alcohol as compared to the test group who have achieved a specific amount of a certain blood alcohol level, of which, this testing measures specifically that which is pertinent to the nature of driving.  That is to say, if we conclude that the scientists or legislators back in the 1970s were clearly unqualified or unscientific or just plain wrong on what actual driver impairment was -- which is why .15% was considered at that time to be impairment, as contrasted to something considerably lower, then it has to be taken into account, that the current limit of .08% may not itself, be any more true or accurate.

Indeed, the way that the DUI law seems to work, is that there has clearly been a concerted effort to lower the DUI rate to .08% not so much because the roads will be safer, but as a means for those who believe that drinking a little alcohol and then getting behind a wheel, should not be permitted and that the punishment for those doing so, should be significant – when, in fact, when it comes to impairment of any sort, the very first thing to figure out, is the true dividing line between impairment and non-impairment and to believe that the line is .08% should be scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and not presumed.

“Safety is our number one priority” and other lies

We are told through media of all types from some of the biggest for-profit corporations that, for instance, our safety is their number one concern, or that protecting our credit is their highest priority, or that their care for the environment is their priority number one, and so on and so forth.  Yet, as sweet as those words may sound, they are fundamentally not in accordance with the reality of the situation, especially in consideration, that the largest corporations in America, have not only a Board of Directors to answer to, but also the stockholders that collectively care a heck of a lot more about profits and growth, and not so much are concerned about safety or any other activities that would seem to take away from that profit and growth.

In a capitalistic society, the tradeoff between money and safety typically leans heavily to the profit side. Therefore, those in management want only to do what they have to do, to maintain some semblance of being safe in their activities. Though they may well have a department that addresses such, that department does not run the company but must itself toe the line within the company or else its funding or relevancy will be compromised.  Indeed, the call for safety as being the number one priority is often no more than public relations, in which, the hope is that by saying the right words, or in being apologetic, or in promising to do better in the future, that this will make what has occurred, to be perceived as nothing much more than a one-time thing or considered then to be a tempest within a teapot.

It is vital that companies have values, and that these values have a necessary balance between the lust for profits and doing the right thing by society, and thereby protecting the general public, as well as the employees of a given corporation from undue harm.  However, when it comes to gross margins, bonuses, stock options, and the focus of a company’s energy and effort, we find that again and again, that which could be done to bring forth more safety, safer products, or greater concern for environmental hazards created by corporations, and so forth, that doing the right thing, almost always takes a back seat to profit.  This thus signifies that governmental agencies as well as journalists have a responsibility to hold to account these mighty corporations, for when they do not, all we get are apologies, and seldom do we get, the changes that are required for these corporations to actually be a good member in standing for society, at large.

Indeed, the more that we hear about how safety is the number one priority of a corporation, the more that we should demand of that company the proof that this is not only the actual mindset of such, but also all the evidence that would substantiate such, for when this is lacking, it is only fair to state that the words so being spoken, are empty and devoid of substance, and therefore these words are no more than misdirection and in their effect, an insult to the general public.

The desire for security often comes at the expense of liberty

The most common way for any governmental institution to aggrandize onto itself ever more power is to convince the general public that such power is necessary in order to best protect them – therefore, the people must relinquish some of their liberty for the security which the government thus provides for them.  Oftentimes, this is structured in a way and manner in which the government sells the story that these liberties so being sacrificed are not only for the greater good but that such a sacrifice is only for a finite amount of time; however, experience tells us that liberties that have been forfeited seldom come back to the fore, and even when they do, those liberties have effectively been hollowed out.  This thus signifies that there must be a reasonable balance between security and liberty, for that government that has the power to provide lock-tight safety, is the very same government that has then in its hands firm control of our most precious liberties.

There needs to be a fair balance between security and liberty, for governments have a habit of enacting more and more measures that are meant to be for the citizen’s safety, of which, those measures so taken are in many a case, far more intrusive, than what reasonableness requires.  After all, when the powers that be are above the law, it doesn’t matter much to them, how much liberty is thereupon left to the general public, for those who are the power brokers, have what they desire to have, typically at the expense of the people.  Further to the point, to have strong security in place necessitates, therefore, the people being monitored and those that are in power, decide then what is best to activate that security, per what they envision, which probably will not be in harmonic conformance with enumerated Constitutional powers.

The crux of the problem with sacrificing some degree of liberty for security is that this often becomes a slippery slope, of which, in the beginning, such sacrifice doesn’t appear to be any real big deal, but as time goes on, the erosion of liberties gets even worse, and slowly those that are the people, that are supposed to have a government, of, for, and by the people, find themselves no longer being governed by the consent of the governed, but rather are perceived as nothing much more than subjects, for the government to thereby do with them, as that unanswerable government best sees fit.

So too, when the government knows everything about us, but that same government is opaque to the general public, then the balance between the government and the people is out of whack; thereupon leading to all sorts of abuses, for by the lack of liberty, the people no longer have recourse to justice, for that has essentially been sacrificed to safety, of which, that security having been unequally applied, benefits not really the people, but rather benefits those that are its actuators, so that these elite entities, have gained the security to know that they cannot be successfully assailed, and the people have not the liberty anymore to prevent such.

“Laws against freedom and dignity”

The esteemed thinker and author Thomas Szasz believes that laws that protect an individual from their self, should be called “laws against freedom and dignity”  -- which whenever enacted by legislators thereby creates victims without any real crime.  While the government can legislate all sorts of laws on behalf of public safety and order, it has to be acknowledged, that if we are indeed sovereign within our own personhood, that we therefore should have the right to do with our personhood whatever that it is that we so desire, as long as it not harming other societal members.  In other words, those who are inclined to recreational drug use, or are in possession of illicit drugs, or are gambling at unsanctioned venues, or have engaged with consensual sex with another individual for a monetary price or its equivalency, aren’t actually hurting the public by that behavior, and therefore should not be recognized as lawbreakers.

There are indeed lots of decisions that people make every day, that are not seemingly of benefit to that person, yet, these same people have or should have the volition to still make those decisions.  Further to the point, things that certain people do, may not meet with our individual approval, but the freedom that each of us has to conduct our business in the way and manner that we best see fit, should and ought to be ours to own.  That is to say, what we say and do, is our freedom; whereas, those who desire to conform to the prevailing norms of the day, are entitled to do so, but should not have the right to coerce others to conform to those societal norms.

To live in a “Nanny state” is to live in a state, in which it is the government’s business what we do in private, in addition to what we do in public, and the more laws that are legislated and pass, that infringe upon our individual sovereignty, the more freedom that we have sacrificed to the state.   Those things that are currently classified as “victimless crimes,” which thereby means that those committing those crimes, will duly suffer the penalty for doing so, need to be revoked or overturned, because all crimes so classified against one’s self, or regarding voluntary actions between two or more adults, should not be seen as criminal behavior, whatsoever.

To believe that we need the state to protect us from possibly harming ourselves, may be in its intent, a good thing, but it should be admitted, that adults need to have the agency to make their own decisions, to which, they are entitled to make decisions that may or may not meet with orthodox societal approval.  To believe somehow that this nation would be better off if we all thought and behaved the same is thereby a belief that conformity is the highest order and therefore the most desirable of things; whereas, the truth of the matter is that those that actually utilize their brains to think, recognize that free will is a gift to us by our Creator,  and to exercise such, is our unalienable right.

Censorship online and our freedom of speech

Somehow, our government seems slow in understanding that just because something is written or shown as a post or video online, that this is considered to be different than our First Amendment right to free speech.  In other words, those who use social media or things of that general ilk, have in recent times been subject to having their free speech removed from the public square, such as we have seen done with Facebook posts, (Twitter)X, and also with Google products.  The government has taken the attitude that those, for example, that have a different theory of the origin of COVID-19, or in regards to “stop the steal,” or other areas of import to the general public, have the right to determine what is or isn’t legitimate, and therefore that government through the pressure that it exerts on corporate entities, or in conjunction to a quid pro quo, censor certain posts on the internet, which is a violation of free speech.

We read at ncsu.edu that “Freedom of speech is the right of a person to articulate opinions and ideas without interference, retaliation or punishment from the government.” Yet, this government has shown in recent years that it will interfere, it will retaliate, and it will punish those exercising their free speech through the Internet, again and again.  Look, it has to be recognized that those who desire to express their opinion or have the belief that the origin of COVID-19 actually came from a “gain of function” laboratory in Wuhan, China, that accidentally or irresponsibly released the coronavirus are permitted to express that in conversations with one another but have been subject to that viewpoint being censored when doing so on social media.

All those who believe that for the good of this nation, we need to censor more words and videos that some people find to be uncomfortable or the orthodox government finds to be an inconvenience, or that are considered to be outside the narrative that mass media wishes to propagate -- is thereby a form of censorship and should be clearly seen as a violation of the First Amendment of our freedom of speech.  The fact that some of the biggest and most powerful social media companies routinely kowtow to the government is a reflection that their pursuit of profit is their main concern, and when the government makes it clear to these companies that their disobedience to their dictates or preferences has not been taken seriously, these corporations are quick to recognize that their bottom line may well be negatively impacted, which would come to the dismay of their principal stockholders and corporate executives.

We live in a hi-technology age, in which the immediacy of social media posts or videos posted online, is a preferred method of getting across to one’s followers, what is desired to be expressed, per a given entity’s wishes, and to have that suppressed and censored by the government is a disservice to what this nation is supposed to represent, because posts online that do not violate any of the narrow conditions of our First Amendment Rights, should not ever be censored and the fact that they are being censored reflects that this government has aggrandized onto itself, powers that are not legitimately theirs at the expense of the people and their freedom of speech.

Humankind’s biggest loss

There are many things that humankind could do to help make this world a better place but somehow they fail to do so, time and time again.  The proximate reason why this is so is basically that often those who are in the most influential and powerful positions in society, are the very same, who consistently ignore that small, still voice within, and instead believe and thereby behave in a manner that all that really matters, is this material existence, and therefore have just an ordinary consciousness, and thereby ignore or put to the side, that their real origin is divine.

Indeed, either we have been created as spiritual beings by our Creator, temporarily housed within a physical body, to thereby allow us to prove our loyalty and wisdom to that which created us by doing good one to another; or we can fundamentally ignore that, and pretty much see this world any way that we so see fit, because as free-will beings we are permitted to do that very thing.  However, those who turn away or turn off the voice of God, and therefore exist solely upon their own consciousness, have made a decision that could have serious consequences for them and those that they interact with.

Certainly, one of the main objectives that we should have here on earth is to search for truth, and in that search, we need to thus honor that truth, and by doing this diligently, we will re-open the door that permits us to comprehend that our true existence should strive to be in harmony with that which created us, thereby signifying that all that we say and do that’s in conformance with our Creator, is good, and that which is not, is going to be primarily in error and will present us with troubles, that must at some point, be successfully dealt with.

There are far too many people that are enamored of this world, but spend little time, contemplating the Creator of such, and thereby the purpose of such.  In this world, we will be tested, and tested thoroughly, and those that are cognizant of this and wish to pass such a test will thereby conduct themselves in a way and manner that will be beneficial to not only their own self but to society, at large.  On the other hand, those that consistently ignore this, or prefer to not pay close attention are going to be prone to making the types of errors, which will be of consequence to them, which is their loss, for the avenue of enlightenment is freely available to all.

We live in a world, in which, those who overly identify with the physical and the enticements that gravitate them to certain behaviors, are going to lose, because they are concentrating on the wrong thing, for humankind, too often, has through their own volition or ignorance, chosen to fall into ordinary consciousness, and thereby have forsaken that which is eternal, in preference to that which is temporal, and many of those, will only recognize their error near the end of their earthly existence or not at all.  It is to our lasting loss when we don’t recognize who and what we really are, for that of which we are made, is eternal and has an everlasting innate desire to re-align itself consciously with its immaculate Creator.

The continued exploitation of humankind

The world is often an unfair and unequal place, of which, there are some that proselytize that this is the way that it has to be, especially in consideration that what we get out of life, is not only what we put into life, but also that in capitalistic societies that there are going to always be unequal outcomes, for such is necessary in order to incentivize those that are the innovators and entrepreneurial, over those that do not have the same sort of mindset, or are content with their basic lot in life or just don’t have the right stuff.

In actuality, few would quibble with some getting more and others getting less, if the overall societal pie, was constantly growing, and the table that humankind thereby eats at, was basically inclusive, and not exclusive.  Yet, when we take a good look at society, we readily comprehend that the fairness, and equality expected under the law as well as opportunity, does not, in the biggest matters of importance, actually exist.

We find that there are those who are quite adept at exploiting humankind, and apparently have no real issue in doing so, despite the fact that all of us are equally created by the very same Creator, and therefore one would think, deserving therefore of our fair consideration.  Rather, the exploitation that goes on, starts firstly, by what humankind has relied upon, again and again, which is not great ideas who time has come, but rather force, done through the state or corporate interests of such, through the aegis of the military, the police, private security, and things of that general ilk.  In other words, when the people are rising up in protest against, for example, their work conditions, or overall fairness, the response far too often is not really to listen to their complaints and thereby come to some reasonable accommodation, but the preference is to sustain the exploitation and force those that will not conform to conform.

Additionally, we live in a day and time in which the coin of the realm, is money, as issued by the government, and those who have fair access to such, are best able to live decent lives; whereas, those who do not have fair access to such, or are constantly short, are left in a highly vulnerable position, which makes them much easier to exploit and to take advantage of, because half a loaf, is always going to be better than no loaf at all.

Finally, humankind suffers from all sorts of foibles, of which, those who through the modern-day usage of social surveillance or who just pay close attention to the habits of others, are best able to exploit those weaknesses, so that if distraction is the preferred method of disengaging someone from complaining or protesting, then mindless entertainment of all sorts is provided to them, at a very cheap price.  When that isn’t enough then governance makes sure that licit and illicit substances are readily available that will capably addle the mind, thereby providing those that are weak with that which will, placate or neutralize them and therefore preclude them from rising up.

Indeed, until the exploitation of the other is legislated out of existence, or reduced considerably, those seeking life, liberty, and happiness, will invariably come up short, again and again.

“It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them”

The above quotation comes not from some revolutionary radical but rather is part of the address so made by President Roosevelt at Madison Square Garden on October 31, 1936.  The reason why FDR said what he said, was because of the pushback that he was getting from certain segments of corporate interests in regards to the Social Security payroll plan, so formulated to support workers in their retirement years, and of which, the employers of those workers were thus obligated by federal law to pay their monetary payroll portion to the Social Security Administration.

Indeed, a significant amount of working people, in general, don’t really know their rights or understand necessarily the legislative laws so proposed and passed, therefore signifying that those corporate interests that could proselytize that monies being withheld from an employee’s paycheck were actually detrimental to that employee, could thus get that employee to help fight their battle.  So too, employers that could convince their workers that Social Security was un-American in the sense that it seems to reflect some degree of socialism within this nation, would also help to sell the narrative that the employers desired to push.

Anytime there is something new and innovative, that hasn’t previously been part and parcel of the employees' positive experience, it is vital that this government provide the necessary information so that those that would benefit the most from having a robust Social Security, would understand that the benefits of such, would far outweigh its negatives. This means that as the President and in considering that it was the administration policy to see that legislation so passed and subsequently enacted, should not, therefore, be undermined or counteracted by corporate agitators, that it would behoove that President to have his say, so that those that would be the intended beneficiaries, would subsequently understand the importance of reaping the security of having monies provided to them, calculated on their work history, which would serve to support them in their retirement years.

It has to be admitted that in a capitalistic system, that those with the capital have an immense advantage over those who are employed to work for the capital holders, so that it is this government’s obligation to help level the playing field by supporting the working people of this nation, for the greater good of this nation -- which signifies that it is in the best interests of this country to see that those that are gainfully employed are entitled to a wage of substance, and further to the point, for their years of labor, are entitled to Social Security benefits, to be of material aid to them in their retirement years.

Those then that are fixated upon profit above all else, are the very same, who are not only reluctant to fairly share the spoils of success, but regrettably have the attitude that once a worker’s utility has been used up, they don’t have a real interest in seeing that they contribute to their welfare.  FDR recognized this sentiment for what it was and made it his point, then, to fight for the common man in the sure knowledge that wealth concentrated solely in the hands of the few, leads to the tyranny of those few, at the expense of the workers that they so employ.

“Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?”

The above quotation comes to us by the incomparable Saint Augustine, and the meaning behind these sage words, is that when principalities and kingdoms conduct their business without justice, that because of their scale and size, these should be seen as great robberies upon the people, of which, further compounding this injustice, that principality or kingdom typically does such, with total impunity.

A given nation is only as good as its governance and when that governance is consistently unfair, unequal, unjust, and discriminatory, in which certain peoples and personages are the favored few -- as contrasted to the majority of the people who are the unfavored many, then this is in its effect, a great robbery on the people, made worse by the fact that those who are persecuted and subsequently incarcerated or punished, are seldom the biggest robbers, but rather are robbers on a much lesser scale.

No country deserves the moniker of being great if it is not fair, just, and equal to those who are the citizens of that nation.  Indeed, whenever our government lies to us, deceives, us, keeps unnecessary secrets, and hides what it is doing supposedly on behalf of the people, by saying that it cannot disclose necessary information to the general public or an independent agency, because of its need to protect the national security and therefore is not forthcoming to its citizens, this then is a country that is operating not under the consent of the governed, but rather is operative under the consent of those that are its true actuators -- typically accomplished for the benefit of well-connected individuals, entities, agencies, and corporations.

That nation that truly desires to be great, must recognize intuitively that it needs to be a nation of justice, and when it is clear to the citizenry that there is no justice for them, there will not be any lasting peace, because when a people know that not all is right, they will chafe at the chains that have been unjustly foisted upon them.

The more unjust a nation is the more dissent, disunion, and incivility there will be, and no matter how disciplinary that nation’s governance is, we find that a people who are oppressed, cannot rest until they see that there will be justice.  So too, the hypocrisy of “don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time” is demonstrated by governments that commit injustices upon the people, again and again, but hold themselves above the law; whereas, the people are left to feel the full fury of that same law upon them.

That government that governs best, is that government that is most just and most transparent in the words and actions so taken on behalf of the people, that they are meant to dutifully serve.  Those who are good stewards of the people’s needs are the foundation of what a proper government should be, for in actuality a nation is only as good as those who are its leaders, who are first and foremost, diligent in their duty to do right by those that they serve, by being just, by being fair, and by being accountable and open to the people.

James Madison on the “loss of liberty at home”

The future 4th President of the United States wrote to the future 3rd President of the United States that “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against. danger real or pretended from abroad.”  Indeed, our founding fathers of this nation were incredibly prescient and knew not only human nature, but also understood the inner workings of the national governance and did not wish to see the United States of America devolve into being an oppressor of the people, but rather desired to see that this nation was in fair conformance to being a nation of, for, and by the people, so as to protect best the citizen’s unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We live in a day and age, in which, those who are our leaders, are far too prone to sell to us the same tired story again and again, that there are enemies abroad that are so dangerous to our way of life and democracy, that we need to address them forthrightly in their foreign lands through sanctions or war, or both; and in order to best protect our citizenry at home, our government needs more and more robust governmental powers, thereby signifying that the people need to sacrifice some of their liberties for the security of this nation as well as for the protection of their own personhood.

We are told by our government that we should trust that they always have the peoples’ best interests in mind, and therefore the legislative laws and Executive Orders that are actuated, are prudent and for our own good, as well as necessary for our security, of which, some of these laws are subsequently sold to the general public as being for a finite amount of time, or until the crisis has passed, but often are re-purposed in a way and manner, that these laws and Executive Orders are never repealed or to suffer expiration, at all.

We want to believe that our government has our best interests in mind, but because so much of what the government does is secretive and therefore not for purview or review to the general public, it is therefore impossible to know as whether or not our government is being forthright and honest with us;  because as it stands this type of governance lends itself to the people sacrificing more and more of their liberties and freedom, under the guise that this is necessary for homeland security, without the people knowing how true or untrue that this actually is.

To place trust in any government or any personage in which that trust is not warranted is the same as giving up some portion of our freedom, and the more that we cede what has been gifted to us by our Creator to that which deserves it not, the more that we become less citizens with a democratic vote, with fair representation, and more that we devolve into becoming subjects, that are meant to serve the interests of those that are in authority, with the attendant sacrifice of our Constitutional liberty