Untitled Outline 3: Crude Supplemental

Untitled Outline/Draft 2

So here is an outline for the opposition to putting people in cages for any fucking reason whatsoever (except for the kinky and defensive…I am aware of the intellectual dishonesty suggested/recommended to justify exceptions, I just haven’t worked it out yet), and the corrupt soul or morals which seek to justify doing so (even with regards to the most sadistic mass murderers or boogeyman of your choice.)

 

One of the key foundations or THE key foundation is that no technological advance can be relied upon to confirm or deny any suspicion or accusation of guilt/responsibility of any action (or simply “confirm or deny the responsibility of any action” maybe). Whether that action may be at any given time in the past or expansive (and hopefully infinite) future I hope for emotional beings such as ourselves and others out there on other rocks wandering just what the fuck is going on ‘here’.

 

Re: no technological advance needed in order to ‘improve’ justice. Justice seems necessary in order to persist (every sentence will be reviewed and clarified), I just need to spit out this outline that has been pestering my mind for a decade.

 

We must already be equipped with all that we need in order to diagnose what is in need of justice and already equipped with proper methods with which we may seek it. To rely on technological advancement suggests that humans today or intelligences prior to such technologies were incapable of the proper responses and diagnoses of injustices. Such an argument strikes me as bullshit

 

So, no technological advance can be trusted which claims to better identify those acts deemed necessary to be adjudicated (have justice brought to or administed), nor can technology advance how justice is better adjudicated/administered. Flatly. Only elaboration, no equivocation on this point. Period.

 

Now to review technological advances which seem to lend certainty to propriety/accuracy. One small distinction I want to make (no waffling, only clarifying here) is that such advances provide material for review. Whereas in the stone age, ol’ So-and-So’s witness and word was all that was depended upon (and is still, I grant, roughly all that is just or proper) to discern between the truth or falsity of events, ‘unaltered’ footage and ‘altered’ footage at least provides those not on the scene of injustices a chance to learn of injustices they may not have otherwise been able to consider. Some footage or recording will be unadulterated/unaltered. The better fakes become, the less this type of evidence can be relied upon, to the point that, assuming an uninterrupted improvement in technology, such evidence/reliance will necessarily only become more dubious.

 

RE: deep fake videos. This brings us to our first and perhaps most popular point of contention – video evidence (e.g. digital/video proof). This actually encourages offering the point that the more video technology advances, the less we can believe our own eyes. Video evidence, every day, is advancing technologically enough to betray our senses/intuition (intuition in the Kantian sense) ever more convincingly. We are perhaps at the point at which it would be easy to present someone with true/actual/real footage of injustices which are ‘known’ (more on that much later) to be so, and footage which is either performed by actors (wherein there is no injustice whatsoever, only the portrayal of injustice) or footage that is created entirely featuring ‘people’ who do not exist in the world in which they are portrayed (wherein there is also no injustice, except that portrayed/depicted by light through pixels) and this someone not being able to casually/certainly discern the difference. The more advanced the technology, the less we can depend on related advancements to portray real events or rely on those portrayals to determine when an injustice has occurred. (scrutinize every fucking word of this).

 

Same with audio in this regard (and other senses utilized to determine actual injustices (injustices must be clearly defined at some point. I floated objective injury to Dr. Block personally in his office and he seemed receptive or at least curious). Taste (use actual word), smell (use actual word), tactile (actual word like this), etc. evidence, however they may occur or become available. As technology advances, the less we can depend on their related/relative/originated inputs to understand ‘the world around us’(i.e. to understand truth) - that which, as we naively believe, cannot be manipulated. As Hoppe said in “Economic Science And The Austrian Method” (maybe bitch about this distinction in a footnote, such as American physics and Chinese chemistry), the difference between what happens to be so and what must be so.

 

Those defending prisons/trials/physical evidence: It must be claimed that, as we and our technology advance/evolve, we inherently or likewise become more just. That, in the future, justice is in more capable hands than it is with you now. I would hope such a claim would piss you off. That such a claim made today would piss of our ancestors from 10,000 B.C. ….and beyond. How far beyond into the past is interesting to consider. This implies that concepts of justice must have emerged at some definite point in human history, and forego any consideration of justice emerging elsewhere in the animal kingdom. This will likely not be included but would be an interesting corollary. (Ultimate justice being somehow just in the division of the first living cell, with spacetime as witness, etc. Too freaky a corollary to consider for these purposes but my mind goes there).

 

 

This brings me to the caged tiger/lion/XXX beast problem I came up with. That, when viewing footage of someone intentionally leaving an animal’s cage unlatched in the hopes it will attack a rival (or, simply, another person. Even the releaser, to foil knowing whether it was an accident or suicide), it would be impossible, even with the most advanced video technology, to demonstrate that the cage was left unlatched unintentionally/accidentally/regrettably or intentionally/purposefully/unregrettably. Technology advanced enough to recognize the mind would have no need of visual depictions (but itself could be misrepresented as ‘the cutting edge, impervious to fraud or misrepresentation’. That the act of not doing something, in this case, latching a cage, is indistinguishable from doing so intentionally. All actions are purposeful. Not to be confused with movement (that spastic twitching in your sleep because you are unstable or sub-consciously alert, as if sleeping in a tree {some such reference to that theory of ante-humans, maybe. VERY careful with any such reference). The act of not doing something is as deliberate as doing something. Video evidence would be un-compelling to prove that a cage was not latched (or left unlatched, consider this distinction) intentionally. The person who leaves the cage unlatched may be deemed irresponsible and untrustworthy, but it seems unfair or unjust to deem them evil. No evil is without purpose. Shun the clumsy, irresponsible all you please (also worth elaboration – everyone to be treated non-aggressively after the fact, whether they wear a shirt you don’t like or whether they killed a loved one) but deeming an accident or oversight as evil seems inappropriate. Punishing such an accident/oversight to the hilt would be permissible as long as no aggression was initiated. (see blackhole)

 

Without digging out my notes, the casual example is the releaser of the animal from a cage in order that that animal will feed on an enemy of the releaser ( I mentioned the caged animal/desire problem earlier, these thing will be consolidated. They are separate here). There is a thread on Reddit about this (I think I called it ‘loophole in the NAP?’ in the libertarian forum. I actually emailed Dr. Block about this and he responded (he posted it on lewrockwell.com as well, sometime in the spring of 2019):

 

Evil release to an innocent or undesiring victim

Evil release to a person who desires to be mauled (as a suicide whether for dramatic effect or not)

Irresponsible release on an innocent person (an actual absent-minded unlatching of the cage, unevil but responsible just the same)

Irresponsible release on a person who is actually hoping to be mauled by a wild animal for whatever reason.

 

Rarer occasion: purposeful/intentional release of an animal on someone who wishes to be mauled to death as suicide or other rite. But this releaser would film the event (with the barbaric tenets of the justice system in mind) in hopes of being accused and convicted of murder in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the system they are convicted within. They released the animal with the full support of the victim and yet were convicted of murder. This person intentionally sacrificed time in prison to make a point about the absurdity of video evidence to throw people in cages.

 

I have several options jotted down, all inconclusively determined by video evidence. Which of the above has occurred when you see someone walk away from a cage without latching it? Perhaps make the same case for video ‘evidence’ of an execution style shooting, beheading, etc.

 

 

Back to case against imprisonment: Plainly, that innocent people have been put in cages for crimes they did not commit. If so, evidence presented is capable of being faulty, people are capable of lying, planting evidence, etc. Suggest a lottery within such a barbaric system (imprisonment/restraint after the fact) where people are selected at random for being imprisoned for the crimes of others since a justification of such a system may be that no one is perfect or that mistakes are made or that, for the most part, ‘we’ get things right. Sure, innocent people rot in cages for the crimes of others….but not me! Some other sucker spends his/her life in prison for the injustices of someone who has, admittedly (in this system of cages we have), gone undetected unduly punished while this (innocent) sucker rots. Perhaps this would be an ironic place for statistics (which may betray the declaration that no statistics be used). Take those ‘proven innocent by such and such evidence’, divide that number by the population that person is therein contained for example, then conclude that X number of people per year are to be selected at random per state (or country on Earth) to represent those who are acquitted annually in any given area. This number will be greater than one as long as it is conceded that the innocent are sometimes wrongly convicted. This is probably straining my ‘no statistics’ clause but I am just blurting things out here. Perhaps a similar lottery proposed for a society with no imprisonment. Where guilt of violence is assigned in a lottery and the ‘winner’ is probed for past violence.

 

Given that, in these systems, usually comprised of judges and juries or other determiners, evidence is provided and exalted by people who possess knowledge uncommon to those making the decisions of imprisonment. The random juror or judge is unlikely to be an expert in forensics, biology, chemistry, physics, ballistics, etc (perhaps have a ridiculous laundry list here) all at the same time. Other people’s word is depended upon in such cases. Therefore they must demonstrate that it is impossible for someone to lie convincingly, etc. To do so it seems necessary to know other minds.

 

I made the case in the previous paragraph about trusting people’s word and then sort of mocked doing so at some point in this rant. Reconcile this by exclusion or elaboration.

 

Also random – to give away the administration of justice to ‘others’ is to invite the possibility that those actually responsible for heinous acts may be deemed innocent on technicalities, or deemed innocent just ‘because’, which usually consists of being well-connected to some degree. Doing so would require the method/scheme I’ve laid out here. It must rely on the trust that those who are found guilty of crimes are actually put in cages (if that is desired). When the responsibility of quarantining those responsible for heinous acts does not rest in every person (theoretically) then it is possible that if you are satisfied with being told that someone is being brought to justice that they may not actually be. It may be reported that the child of your favorite senator or celebrity, or that person themselves, is being put in a cage for such and such transgression but is, in actuality, not, and resting peacefully in an estate (careful here). Your sense of justice, in these systems, relies on being assured that someone else is handling things and that they have done so according to your specifications. Just trust them, see. You are being told justice has been administered, and that is all that matters. Knowing that justice has been done vs. being told, remotely, that justice is being done to your liking.

 

Make the case about community and communication being more satisfying sources of justice rather than trusting those whom you would be imprisoned for not funding. Those who must convict someone in order to justify their prominence or eminence or legitimacy, their own use of violence, etc.

 

 

A major refutation will be forthcoming for Hoppe’s proposal that those responsible for injustice are to be treated as wild animals (the regression of murder leading to one final murderer who must kill themselves as justice and therefore eradicate the human race as justice for one person’s murder of another)

 

I can’t seem to get Hoppe’s a priori of argumentation out of my head as it relates to this. It seems to rest ultimately on persuasion [an infinite, unyielding, ultimately un-victorious (in total/categorical) persuasion]. One that must be argued indefinitely. One that cannot be settled categorically if it is to be proven through its argumentation. One that, while intrinsic (an intrinsic confession of self apart from others), is still mysterious or evasive because I want to grant human and other high intelligences the dubious honor of being capable of being so in that we are able of fooling ourselves or somehow to be unaware of our (true?) selves. Other intelligences (whether lower/other animal, insect, amphibian, plant, etc.) being rather unfortunate in that, as far as their ‘lower’ intelligences are concerned, they never err (roughly). They only learn or try and try again. There is no reflection.

 

If you are able to forget or not recognize that by acting purposefully and separately from any other speck of matter that you must respect your distinction as wholly owned and proprietary then you are smart as fuck. Sounds ridiculous but that is my theory of higher intelligence – being able to fool one’s/your self.

 

To intellectually betray your individuality, however sub/unconsciously or not, is a sign of true intelligence. To neglect to notice that, because you consider every action that you must be separate from that which you wish to act upon, you must have boundaries that are respected by other thinking beings and even matter which may be incapable of considering you. That you know that you are not the meteor on a collision course with your world would be enough for even the most basic life-form to recognize its own sanctity/sovereignty, but not you’ you’re too smart for that..

 

I find myself unwilling to consider the obvious my priori of disagreement as it compliments or makes more ultimate Hoppe’s apriori of argumentation. Thinking about it, though, I can’t help but wonder that, if an ‘ought’ can be derived from an ‘is’, that all a priori truths logically lead to (consistent) oughts. And if not to an ought, at least to a demonstration of individuality. That there is not only one a priori truth that logically leads to private property rights or the plain fucking recognition of self apart from not-self/lves, but all of them must. If a private property norm and capitalism are ‘correct’, logically, from an a priori, then Nature wouldn’t lead us astray and suggest, without contradiction, some evil in another a priori.

 

Or maybe it would, so that we pursue these leads into madness or exponential satisfaction in that we never ‘solve’ ‘this’ because doing so would be dangerous or un-fortuitous for some belief or mode to become all-commanding and all-encompassing, or because there is a good and evil mind penetrating with varying success every mind it is capable of penetrating in the universe. So, I will continue to tinker with elaborating the undeniable a priori of disagreement which, while perhaps not original, was original to my mind without aid, and therefore provides some intellectual comfort, because that is all that remains (aside from persistent discomfort). Discomfort in this ‘sense’ as a force for good, as is the comfort in which….something happened here….program cantankerous…. (wtf is this shit I have never used cantankerous). I am perhaps futily juggling the verbage of Harbermas and Hoppe simultaneously.

 

In defense of Hoppe’s argumentation and communication a priori, responsibility for an action can only be determined by knowing the mind of the perpetrator, the victim, or witness. Or trusting the word alone of any of the above (which can be betrayed). So, after laying out the absurdity of relying on physical evidence (which can be forged in the case of technological evidence, transported in the case of blood, skin, semen, etc, lied about by an expert in any one of the aforementioned fields, etc) all we are left with in ultimately determining responsibility or involvement in an injustice (to be defined) is knowing the minds or trusting the word of those involved as actors/victims/witnesses.

 

One simple refutation to (what is allegedly) Hoppe’s claim that those who have participated in violent acts should forevermore be treated as technological rather than moral problems: Say someone guilty of a murder 20 years ago is finally located by someone seeking justice for that act. By Hoppe’s reasoning, it is permissible to treat the aggressor, at any point in time after the murder, as a wild animal (to be enslaved for work, food, or as a whipping post for satisfaction, etc). I agree with that distinction during the act of violation (or some such phraseology) as I’ve scribbled the case that an attacker desires the victim to act against the attacker’s will; it is built in to the attacker’s violation of a sovereign person, etc. The locator/vigilante at last finds this murderer and, being a Hoppe-ian/Kinsell-ian, decides to treat this vermin as an insect and literally destroy its (his/her) body. According to Hoppe/Kinsella, it would be permissible at any time subsequent to a murder to treat the murderer as such (as a wild beast or other pest). So, our vigilante tracks down the murderer and decides to quarter (remove the legs and arms) of the ‘known’ (extraordinarily/psychically…I have a problem with extraordinary because this must all be ordinary but after some extreme trial. A common trial through the ages, perhaps less so as technology advances. Address this seeming contradiction) murderer and consume ITS (its, according to Hoppe/Kinsella, not his/her, for this is not a human) body. This person is just a murderer after all, not human, even though it is capable of argumentation. A witness, we will assume for this exercise that the witness to the quartering/devouring is but a modest Normie, does not see a vigilante administering justice to a killer, but simply a man acting rather sadistically towards another man. This Normie interferes (rightfully, imo) in defense of the murderer (who he doesn’t know is a murderer, just as the object of a sadistic ritual) and kills the vigilanted. The Normie would logically have to be accused of interfering with justice (not only justice, but apriori justice which he cannot deny without contradiction) and therefore himself be accused of murder. He just saw a guy being mutilated by someone who was quite enjoying the mutilation of this ‘insect’. The Normie saw no thorax, but an apparent torso, etc. Must this Normie now be deemed an obstacle to the administration of justice and, worse yet, a murderer? The dude doesn’t know minds, he just sees someone being mutilated. That is the case that Hoppe-ians must defend and I claim it is impossible from any rational or sensible point of view.

 

Deem them (aggressors of your choosing) an insect to your heart’s desire, but recognize that they are human and not mosquitoes or boars. (this point worth elaboration). You see no thorax or antennae or sextent legs, etc. but maybe you and your primitive senses aren’t suited to judge reality (kidding).

 

Imprisonment requires the deeming of humans to be wild animals or insects that may be treated in any way. (review this) These attackers or violators certainly must be able to be treated as such during their attack,  but the moment that violation has passed, they are humans worthy of sovereignty or else you must defend Hoppe’s vigilante and treat the normie as any other psychopath. A grave injustice as far as I’m concerned.

 

Hoppe seems pleased to justify this position using Kinsella’s common law approach ‘estoppel’ and so, if I’m on the right track, such a defense must be vulnerable to a merciless and victorious reproach. Surely Hoppe has shit on common law at some point in his eviscerations of governments and democracy (for what reason has he done so?). But I must be able to do it on its own merits rather than depend on Hoppe’s (alleged) hypocrisy (in that, by envoking estoppel, Hoppe cannot alter his argument. Hoppe is the fucking man, btw).

 

One point I have with argumentation as a priori is the so-called universality such a truth or claim seeks to achieve. Argumentation seems reserved for linguistics and excludes children, the comatose, and the senile (as Bob Murphy and a co author pointed out). What seems more universal along the lines of dispute, to me (casually, at this point), is either disagreement (which does not have to be vocal) or something similar. Disagreement with an action could be expressed by a child in a physical repulsion of some kind. Whether unable to express the displeasure in words, a physical response might suffice as disagreement. Just realized the comatose would have no reflexive physical response, nor the handicapped (think of a better word) to a disabled limb (alien 4 acid on the wheelchair guy’s leg). It seems the only way to diagnose or recognize the comatose would possibly be by knowing their mind. Same with a baby or young child unable to speak. A psychic displeasure or dis-ease. Quite literally: disease. FUCK. The origin of words just jumps out lately and slaps me in the face.

 

Such an expression would seem to be inclusive of humans and possibly all intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and also may include all life. A dog certainly recoils from a beating, an alligator seems to have a survival instinct if threatened with an adversary wishing to terminate the possibility of future decisions/survival. Tree limbs adjust to neighboring limbs in the search for light, in opposition to other such limbs which have assumed a more favorable position/articulation. Such reflexes or responses to danger would resemble that of humans and so to differentiate between the two (humans and all other life) some psychic expression seems necessary. I seem to be writing parallel essays on imprisonment and Hoppe’s Apriori of Argumentation but they may become (or are) useful to one another at some point and they’ve already come together organically so there are two separate (but perhaps inextricable) ideas happening here.

 

This leads to a tricky notion that is roughly as follows: while not an explicit commendation of rights onto animals other than humans, a physical flight from danger or a disagreement that future action by ‘lower’ animals is ‘just’ or ‘moral’ or simply ‘the way of things’ implies some sort of consciousness or awareness that perhaps would not be included in argumentation but might be included in disagreement (or condsideration which is another apriori I stumbled across on a philosophy forum). While other (non-human) animals may not recognize that they are capable of consideration and disagreement, neither are some humans capable of recognizing their individuality in the apriori of argumentation or indeed in their day to day lives or else the notion of a collective consciousness/will/duty would not have manifested and the excruciating exemplification of argumentation or living or fucking being would not have needed to be deemed to be necessary.

 

this ties into a theory a cancer or other life-terminating responses by nature for anything that feeds off other living things, which is just about everything. in order to survive one must destroy other life.

 

This all boils down to making an absurdity of imprisonment and ANY physical retaliation (after the fact). Physical retaliation to the point of death of the attacker must be defended to the hilt while an attack is ongoing. As soon as a victim has escaped to relative safety, and the aggressor is no longer in pursuit or immediately capable of further violence, I think that retaliation is unwarranted and only risks revisiting the danger of the original assault. A danger it must rationally be argued was worth retaliating against in order to escape. A danger that was escape without desire to experience it further…..

 

In the event that minds can be known (this will be phrased as, roughly, ‘the only other way of determining guilt is knowing other minds and, if that is the case then: the following) , it is inherent in doing so that minds are responsible for those injustices and so must be the object of the pursuit of any articulation/sense of justice. Hands, heads, penises, vaginas, guns, knives must all be shown to be absurd perpetrators of injustice. Crimes or actions of any kind will be shown to originate in a desire, a decision in the mind. That desire being the pursuit of alleviating an unease, which Mises recognizes as the culprit behind any and every action (footnote). If the aforementioned appendages and tools were to be deemed responsible for violent acts, then guns, arms, etc. must be what is imprisoned to accurately adjudicate crimes, rather than minds.  The mantra that ‘guns kill people’ would necessarily lead to prisons for guns. Boxes where inanimate objects are locked away to prevent further disruption. Imaginary boundaries or atom-thick restraints would suffice. Which will be demonstrated to be absurd if it has not been already. Just as it must be demonstrated that to imprison such implements in the course of punishing the mind is equally absurd. The murderer by knife must be imprisoned (in concert or simultaneously) with the knife if those ‘parties’ responsible are to be punished. Itself absurd. A lethal implement (most simply, THE BODY) which would only aid one’s escape from captivity must be imprisoned with that mind if the mind alone was not responsible. Yet it is hardly controversial that it is fucking ridiculous to consider locking an aggressor away with their implement of choice (especially a manufactured item, which itself would be deemed by the perp as an improvement over their bodily implements).

 

Guns don’t kill people - neither do trigger fingers, hands, arms, muscles, nor their skeletal support. Decisions kill people. Desire kills people. The mind kills people. The mind/desire alone is the proper culprit and anything but the mind made to pay the price for the mind is an absurd scapegoat. (cowardice/tactical reason (I do not understand) to identify the ultimate villain/culprit?)

 

This leads to shenanigans (non-violent pestering) being the moral or just response to any and all violations [murder and the theft of a candy bar (leading to the black hole of moral conflict I’ve sketched out {wait until you see this shit…it is the universe})]. The absolute destruction of the MIND (careful here), which requires (should morally utilize) no physical (careful, ignorance) contact whatsoever. And, frankly, can only be achieved without physical contact or assault or violation, or else a physical violation has occurred which is what was deemed to be worthy of punishment in the first place….FUUUCK

 

So basically I have three (or four) sections in mind (section 4 is perhaps best left un-transcribed…I DON’T KNOW:

 

1)    Making an absurdity of any sensory/empirical (careful here as I am ignorant of very important considerations and ‘empirical’ is so perhaps so tricky as to avoid ridicule with language) or technological declarations of absolute guilt. Anything that does not know the mind explicitly of those involved. This will be the ‘easy’ part. Dishonesty of experts (paired with ignorance of jurors), investigators, prosecutors, judges. Portability of physical evidence such as skin, blood, semen, weaponry/ballistics/sharpness/blade length/ad infinitum (a lengthy laundry list for effect). Suggest prison lottery as logical in such systems (it’s always someone else rotting away innocently in prison, poor dumb bastard shouldn’t have been in the wrong place at the wrong time lol)

2)    Make the case that since the mind is the culprit that it is absurd to punish the rest of the body or any other external implements to ‘get at’ or ‘correct’ or ‘punish’ the mind (this will be the bitch).Plainly obvious, but I am lacking in certain ‘details’.

3)    Offer solutions such as doing nothing (personally unsatisfying but perhaps the ultimate ‘gotcha’) and shenanigans (which will not be elaborated to include anything more than ‘non-violent pestering) and the K.I.D.s (Killing In Defense, Killers in Defense) and the upgrades (ArcSuits, Bladesuits, Cloudsuits, etc. in the most ‘extreme’ {imo} cases such as spree shooters, dungeon masters, etc., becoming lethal object of abuse or pursuit or something) while conceding that these technological advancements are not more accurate forms of administering justice (careful even making this claim) but modes/methods that were simply not available. Advances provide more numerous options, not more ‘correct’ or ‘accurate’ or ‘just’ options. Intellectual or cultural or even technological advancements (careful here) provide additional, not more proper options. Grant human progress its place, but only with regards to utility or diversity, not accuracy or precision or propriety. This is an underlying consideration. People are not stupid (case I’ve made, insert here, actually contained in Trump election conspiracy theory). Justice as innate or necessary, precluding or aside or unimproved or unnecessarily pestered by innovation. Very fucking careful with all of this. 

4)    Perhaps the ‘appeal’ for a move towards the end of evil (but never its eradication, as choice or the mind or desire must thrive or be present if we are to be free and not functionaries of  machines, etc and renders eradication impossible) and radical non-aggression to the most extraordinary (even though I have issues with this term) of possible readers (while at the same time appealing to normies who are, after all, just normies {this, coming from a normie}). Phrase to include the ‘extra’ (a distinction I regard as problematic) and the normies in one take without bifurcation. After all, some of these normies (assaulters of all stripes) will be justly made to suffer (justly, imo) and I don’t intend to be the one to cushion their fall.

 

 

Empirical/physical evidence as useful perhaps to identity persons of interest but never to determine responsibility conclusively. Fingerprints could help identify that a particular person’s fingers were present at some point/on some occasion. This alone would not conclude decisively when those prints were left. The lack of fingerprints would also not indicate the absence of a perpetrator. Gloves and alterations of the fingertips themselves could have been utilized. It is possible to remove someone’s hand and utilize fingerprints in this manner. Same perhaps with eye scans. Eyes can be removed. Forget the movie I saw but thought it was interesting that a breath scanner was used. This would at least require a living unlocker but this person could also be made to breathe on the sensor against their will. Perhaps a mind could be considered as a gatekeeper to a vault. If technology can measure or construe a mind, such a technology could defraud (elaborate this).

 

Distinction between empirical and logical/a priori truths. It might be said that how else could a craft be made to land on the moon if empirical evidence is unreliable. It seems that to land on anywhere (somewhere on Earth or on a foreign body), being ‘close enough’ is good enough in order to make a landing (suspension could adjust to an impropriety in Z), but there would necessarily be some degree of imprecision on the landing. Not sure that a craft could be made to land within the margin of error of an atom (that cannot be located without observational tampering). As it relates to determining responsibility for an act, this margin of error could not be conclusive. It could be indicative if actual, but never ever conclusive. Ever. At least reliably as far as a third-party is concerned. And what are individuals not party to a conflict or injustice but observers or third-parties.

 

I may be conflating empirical with math and that could be problematic. Look into this.

 

Once/if  a culprit is determined conclusively, the ‘proper’ punishment still remains and can only be subjective. As laws change, it must be conceded (in a Cage Society) that the proper punishment for X crime was Y time in a cage but that the proper punishment has now changed as the law determining the sentence for X crime changed. Objectivity of value therein COMPLETELY FUCKING EXPLODED.

 

(HIGHLY THEORETICAL SHIT)

Oddly, it seems that empirical evidence is aimed at wave functions and logic at particles or that which can be precisely determined (at least as physical entities). FUCK I THINK I LOST SOME SHIT HERE DUE LOW BATTERY Or perhaps vice versa. Empirical evidence attempts to locate a single particle that is altered or displaced upon attempts to measure/locate it. Logic at waves in that its ultimate ‘being’ or location as truth in a particular place in time is perfectly anticipated. Where, if pi is used in a formula, and pi is infinitely indeterminable, then no formula with pi as a factor or piece can ever be perfect or perfectly true, and would thus just be a probability. It is perfect containing pi itself, but not as a number with infinite decimal spaces? (/HIGHLY THEORETICAL SHIT) I am so pissed that my battery took a shit right here (not a cop out, most of what I had in mind is preserved I think, I had to take a piss then had multiple technological problems

 

Perhaps the difference is between: some innocent people will be caged unnecessarily vs. some guilty will be unpunished unnecessarily? HOLY SHIT. Unnecessarily punish is casual, doesn’t make sense with subjective value but might make sense if some punishment is necessary (by some twist). The last sentence doesn’t make sense to me but that is what survives from the malfunction you have to take my word for.

 

K.I.D. = Killing In Defense

I imagine the K.I.D.s being utilized in a free society in lieu of police but I don't see why we can't start today. I sort of see the K.I.D.s as serving a separate function (justice) from private security (defense) but there's no reason the same function couldn't be performed by the same people. These two services would often complement each other so that the same people may be tasked with performing both functions. The upgrade addresses the concerns of those fond of this scheme but who don't want to do any actual killing (in their own defense) in the course of administering justice but want the perpetrator dead just the same. KIDs and the upgrade(s) would be used in concert with shenanigans (non-violent pestering) in order to expedite a perpetrator's demise that shenanigans alone may not satisfactorily encourage. If you're aware of my caged tiger scenario (and the problem of desire I find there), I think I can walk the line between that desire for death and this desire for death. I doubt I'm walking that line tonight, though. Someone (a dude, for pronoun sanity) is standing in the middle of the street holding (what appears to be, at least) a severed human head. So why not call the police (whom you be imprisoned for not funding) to shoot or at least restrain this fucker, then try him in a court (you would be imprisoned for not funding), then imprison him (where you would be imprisoned for not funding)? It is a fucking mystery. That idiocy aside, I've made the case that coercive imprisonment violates the NAP. We agree on that much. I won't rehash it now. You want to see a world without (non-kinky) cages and cuffs. Enter the KIDs. I'm collecting thoughts, not making a comprehensive case. I'm assuming you've heard me ramble about this before. It could be a prop, a distraught partner wandering in agony. Plenty of reasons not to shoot the holder of a severed head based on appearances. No restraint/imprisonment because that would initiate a new aggression and you and I share a plain reading of the Non-Aggression Principle. So, what to do? You call the KIDs (if they're not already on the scene). This is where I want to assure those who are currently employed as police that they are not so incompetent that they could not function or could not possibly be welcome in this free society but maybe I'm a squish. I think a necessary or common characteristic among the KIDs is vigilance for and disfavor of violent assaults and, if I'm being squishy, previous police training could be invaluable, but must be redirected into non-aggressive resolutions. In this case, resolving a beheading. Anyone can KID: Kill In Defense. Anyone can be a KID: Killer In Defense [even the perp (defending an assault)]. Which is why an assault must first be initiated by the perp in response to peaceful behavior. Shenanigans are peaceful. Some are unbelievable to the point of madness. As far as the KIDs are concerned, a novel madness is a fine addition to the one predisposed to the severing of heads. One so disposed might lash out with their body towards such shenanigans and invite mortal combat. Un-upgraded KIDs would anticipate such a response and be equipped with firearms. A violent outburst could morally (i.e. consistent with the NAP) be responded to with lethal consequences. This sort of response seems best-suited for remote or at least well-coordinated situations because of the risk of collateral damage. Hence the upgrade(s) (and why your input and innovation would be appreciated). I do not mean to diminish in any way the use of firearms by the Kids. I sort of strike myself as having made that allusion and wish to distance myself from me in that regard. If anything, firearms afford a separation that diminishes with every measure of separation from knives/hands the temptation to exceed the exertion necessary to counter an attack. If you're holding a knife and are attacked, the proximity necessary to wield it in defense of yourself might be closer than that necessary to wield a firearm and so the temptation to 'over do' your response in repelling that attack might be more irresistible. The more immediate the threat the more dangerous to Kid. And it is dangerous to Kid. But we agree it is more dangerous to ascend to cages and cuffs than it is to Kid around. What is important to me in making the case for this scheme is that no technological advancement from the most primitive state of humanity is necessary to justify it.

Whether sticks or pistols are utilized must not adversely impact the righteousness of the approach. Ironically, the upgrades I have in mind require closer proximity than do firearms but maybe firearms and these upgrades could be married (a few upgrades just sprung to mind that I prefer to what follows). The first upgrade that came to mind I've decided to call an Arcsuit. If you're Kidding, this suit delivers a fatal electric shock to the slightest contact initiated by an undesirable. If so desired, the wearer would be insulated from such a discharge. This suit could be adjusted to administer varying voltages depending on the impact detected. A bump from a fellow subway traveler? Similar to a handshake buzzer (or not at all). The PSI from what is deemed a dangerous impact? An incapacitating or even fatal bolt. These suits could be worn only for 'special' occasions or may become ubiquitous. The degree of lethality permitted in one's attire would likely vary from one private locale to the next. The toxicity of the chemicals seeping onto the razors of your Bladesuit would also likely vary depending on your location. I initially just thought of razors but after watching Indiana Jones dive around for antidote in The Temple Of Doom I thought poison was a nice touch. Maybe someday technology will grace wearers with incapacitation once directions from the brain to violate someone else's sovereignty have reached the desired extremity, essentially saving one's self from Hell on Earth. Because it is moral to tempt others into Hell, such a feature might be popular. What I have proposed has the potential of preventing you from being yourself. I want to hear your harshest criticism and your slightest apprehension. Is this only to be used defensively? If used to regulate yourself, is it honorable to confess that you cannot be trusted or to worry that you cannot trust yourself? Is this the vaccination debate with a new face? I haven't gotten that far. So I'm inclined to urge this approach only be designed to repel physical attacks or, in the case of personal restraint, be limited to one's own behavior on a voluntary basis. The upgrades are just that. The foundation of this scheme is the Kids and their shenanigans but I wanted to at least spit out the upgrades because it changes the dynamic of Kidding around. I'm going to try to avoid referring to Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell in the future. I'm even tempted not to call it justice (even though I've been harping about justice). Justice, in the sense I mean it, is a non-aggressive response - whatever that response may be to any given circumstance. So whenever I say justice that's what I mean to say. No (non-kinky) cages, no (non-kinky) cuffs. Any response without the initiation of aggression is just. Someone says they like Forrest Gump and you scoff? Justice. Some actor tells a racist whopper and his show and career are imperiled? Justice. Someone beheaded your friend last week and dies inhaling a noxious plume billowing from a ruptured sack on your Cloudsuit after responding violently to your shenanigans? Justice. Someone tries to cuff you (non-kinkily) and you instead cuff them and escape? Justice. The kinkiness or not of cuffing is me being flippant. Non-aggressive cuffing is what I mean to say.

So how to resolve these opposing expressions of justice?

 

justice (these are just notes, not a manuscript)

obtaining justice for a violent act cannot resemble/enact similar violence without initiating continuums which could lead to the eradication of life or the destruction of all property. murder as justice for murder could rationally lead to murder as justice for the murder that was justice for a murder that was justice for a murder that was justice for murder, and on and on, until only one person remains, a lone survivor who must now grapple with being the only benefactor of a justice that left them stranded with no rational executor of justice for their own murder but themselves? This person must face the folly of such a system alone? Contemplate suicide? . the same goes for the destruction or seizure of property as justice for the destruction or seizure of property that was justice for the destruction or seizure of property that was justice for the destruction or seizure of property, and on and on, until nothing is left which is deemed to retain any value or maybe anything (and everything) which remains that is deemed to have value is now under the stewardship of

justice as egalitarian. justice for a punch in the face may be deemed to be properly administered with a punch in the original puncher's face. doing so could only be done equitably if the pain response from the original punch could be duplicated exactly. Since value is subjective and IANG, then that exact quantity of justice cannot be measured and therefore not equitably administered. Just as murder for a murder may be deemed just, the pain endured before death cannot be known since the possible translator of that reception is now deceased (and the value of that pain cannot be known in any case), a murder as justice cannot be known to inflict an equal amount of suffering and, even if it could, could only lead to a possible continuum where murder could be considered justice for the original murder. one might dole out less pain to the initial murderer and so 'come up short' or dole out more pain and 'over do it'. in either case, justice does not seem to have been done even by those standards.

financial/property justice strikes me as different but may not be. in the case of seeking justice for a stolen $10, since money (in this case) is fungible, receiving $10 from your thief as restitution seems a just compensation as far as the property goes, but the question of the lost time to recuperate those dollars remains. Since the value of that time is subjective, it cannot be known if inflicting a similar time loss on the thief will be suffered as intensely as that lost by the victim (since IANG, etc.)

time wars?

look into 'an eye for an eye' as similar or the same as an egalitarian view of justice which logically leads to extinction and/or destruction, hypocrisy and stupidity.

 

JUSTICE FOR THEFT

Someone steals your watch. Maybe someone close to you gave it as a gift and it holds special meaning. The gifter paid 6.50 at walgreen's but the relationship and timing of the gift holds a meaning beyond that dollar value, to the point of it being what you regard as a priceless possession. Maybe you saved your marlboro points specifically for this watch and this achievement is special to you. The thief takes it off your wrist and throws it into a lake, destroying it and or placing it beyond reasonable retrieval. how to be compensated? it is worth more in sentimental value than what it would cost to replace it with the very next such model that was created on the assembly line. It's a very similar watch but you know that it is not THE watch to which you attach so much value. Can you then demand a picasso in return for a five dollar watch since it was priceless to you and the most expensive possession of the thief that can even approach the loss is a 100M painting? It seems that some injustice must remain for there to have been a misdeed in the first place. Such that nothing can replace the sentimental value?  Maybe it is enough to be compensated with a similar model of watch for timekeeping but how to recoup the remaining emotional loss?

a suspected/known murderer is out getting groceries to replenish his dungenon of horrors. he has a victim/victims currently enslaved/bound. if it is ok to murder murderers then one risks leaving current victims stranded with no hope of retrieval.

RE: economic goods as being viewed by participants as an increase in value. someone is holding another person or persons hostage in a home or on a property. i feel like someone should be able to enter that abode/property (morally) to rescue that person. how to justify that without invading that property? the hostage does not view the situation as an increase in value and so the property ownership is void because all inhabitants do not agree on an increase in value? so, regardless of what someone may do alone in a given area designated as their property, it is immoral to violate that space. however, if another person is present, the propriety of that area as private is dependent upon the agreement of that person being there?

this seems to preclude separate properties from overlapping each other. it seems separate adjoining props must permit each other human functions for this agreement to hold. therefore, blaring music or other activity which does not permit one property owner to sleep voids the deal? lines are not simply drawn, they are drawn around a human who must be permitted a certain base level of respect in order to function properly (or something).

justice as a good and the continuum to extinction inherent in murder as justice for murder: maybe look at murder as an injustice because it involved an unwilling participant/victim. in this sense, murdering the murderer would also be an injustice as it involves an unwilling participant/victim. that simple. if the murderer agrees to death as pennance for their abuse, then their is no murder, just a killing (assuming the killer can't bring themselves to commit suicide and instead requests a hanging/firing squad/etc).  the problem i'm encountering with this thinking is that if it is unjust to force someone to do something they don't want to do then it is unjust to resist an attack and force/resist the attacker to do something tey don't want to do. but maybe it is as easy as the resister attempting to reach a 'good' by resisting a 'bad' instead of initiating. so initiation is pivotal as has been stated countless times by liberals (i.e. those seeking/practicing liberty, not the modern distortion of that term by fascists to pat themselvs on the back).

so if it is unjust to initiate force against someone (murder, rape, theft) then it is unjust to respond in kind to the offender. that simple. in this sense, it is unjust to imprison/torture an offender of any stripe. mistaking an in-kind abuse as justice further cements abuse as justice and society drifts farther from any kind of moral evolution toward peace. maybe it feels good to cage/abuse the offender but that feeling must be in common with that felt by the offender in the first place and cannot be substituted for justice imo.

so that is why i lean towards using the K.I.D.s and all manner of psychic shenanigans instead of imprisonment and other physical torture. using torture to extract information or as any measure of justice defiles the righteousness of the abused/'do-gooders' towards abusers.

it seems that resisting abuse in the moment must be tolerated but the moment the attack has ceased then so the resistance must cease (or 'so then must the resistnace cease). if an attacker becomes incapacitated as a result of a defense from their victim then kicking the attacker when they're down (so to speak) seems unacceptable if one is going to claim that an injustice occurred to begin with. injustice as justice is absurd. it's like saying your innie belly button is an outie.

imprisonment and justice are incompatible

prison/jail is a great de-mystifier that i'm not sure any proponent of justice can support. take that humongous system of abuse out of the picture and suddenly angels and aliens and whatever overlord one cares to portray is that much easier to sell.

the immediate transition from a culture of imprisonment to K.I.D.s/shenanigans might initially seem overwhelming and like 'too much work' but a culture of peace would be founded. in this sense, shenanigans might be best exposed to the world. it is a hefty deterrent to abusers of the world knowing they will be tormented in 'those' ways. it also seems to be unscientific for the 'five senses' to be taught as fact when such abilities are possible. keeping shenanigans a secret seems to beg for a certain amount of abuse with which those abilities can be used to deter/combat. i'll think of a better way of saying what i just said because it sounds like 'they're asking for it' and i don't want to say that. maybe it is unbelievable to those without the ability and so wise not to mention. does a mind need to be cracked open with abuse/meds or can any mind be read? i don't know. if any mind can be read then it can be demonstrated to everyone what is possible and so i think it would be wise for the ability to be mainstream to act as a deterrent. this can be sold as unlocking an overlord in case it seems that spilling the beans on overlords seems to ruin blah

imprisonment as abuse renders police obscene. they restrain people and put them in cages for a living. it is doubly obscene that they are funded by taxation which the threat of imprisonment spurs. make the case for private security in lieu of police force.

i'm hesitant to make this case as a 'moral improvement' like i did somewhere above so that is why i need to make the case based on IANG (individuals act, not groups) and that the kind of justice i'm proposing is based on non-ironic subjective values (something to that effect). i don't want to be saying 'my way or the highway' i want to make a case that imprisonment is objectively absurd based on subjective values.

re: shenanigans, IANG, but do groups feel? can joy and pain be shared by others remotely? i don't know

 

SUCKERPUNCH AND RESPONSE

Someone is suckerpunched and is either knocked out or stunned enough that the Puncher has departed, quite pleased with their assault. If the Punched then gathers themselves and pursues the Puncher, say, across the street where they now preen, the Punched initiates a new dispute by seeking revenge with a new encounter. For instance, by taking a swing and starting a new fight. I made that case today and was met with bewilderment. So, how to make that case more attractive? Maybe granting that physical altercations have the potential to be (or are always in some way) mortal combat. In other words, the passions involved have the potential for one or both parties to end up dead, then it seems it must follow that the Punched cannot seek vengeance in a new dispute without having survived the first encounter. Granting that fights have the potential for one's own death, one might be disinclined to initiate an encounter they may not survive. That to respect yourself enough to oppose another's aggression against you, you must respect yourself not to initiate a dispute which begs a violent defense. ////////

 

 

This is an ever-so-rough outline.

 

Notes:

Do not invoke any statistics to make this case. Perhaps even avoid a definitive claim about a specific person being innocent. Doing so would claim some knowledge I don’t or can’t claim to possess. Rely on the, sadly, (regrettable) common knowledge that people have been imprisoned for acts they did not perform. Reason being is that, as of now, I sort of want to punch DNA evidence in the nuts for being 99.999% accurate. Not for being unreliable, but for not being CERTAIN.  2 + 2 = 4. 3.9999 rounded up because of pi to the power of ‘e’ divided by the circumference of some shit is simply not good enough. We are not talking about a person you know (or care to know) nothing about. We are talking about YOU. You are playing this lottery – right now!  For realz. It is perhaps worth reviewing the mind of someone sharing such a DNA commonality, but not in itself  blah I fucked up this point by ranting ABSOLUTELY NOT CERTAIN evidence. To say nothing of the portability of blood, and the dignity/honesty of the expert (whose expertise you likely do not share) telling you what was under the microscope and what organic matter splattered against the tubes in their centrifuges.

Untitled Outline/Draft 1

The Cure For Cancer (theory rant from Sept 2015)

Disclaimer: This post (from a September 2015 rant) assumes the fusion reactor in our solar system is not the lone cause of cancer. 

Also disclaimed: I eat meat without guilt but I've been talking myself out of just about everything lately.

What if the ultimate, pristine understandings of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) not only applies to all life but to anything that was ever alive? Where you couldn't harvest crops or slaughter animals and would need to either adopt an ethic that does not feature starvation or secure an inorganic fuel for your body. And what is that substance? 

Strictly speaking, you'd also have to drink water that does not contain life immoral for you to consume. You can't boil the water because that would kill sovereign organisms. You need water that is somehow pure of all life. Extensively filtered? Organisms effectively evicted? Just like an evicted (as opposed to aborted) baby, organisms in the water have been displaced from their original vessel without harm. But what could you possibly eat except the bodies of dead plants and animals? Maybe that substance, if it exists, is the closest to the fountain of youth in Nature. Maybe even the cure for cancer. Cancer in this case directly tied somehow to the consumption of organic or once-conscious material. If the Non-Aggression Principle applies to all life in this manner, then libertarianism is actually the cure for cancer and we are doomed until that substance is yanked from the universe.

Could we survive off water and vitamins alone? Must we consume some amount of plant or animal life? I started to make a pretty good case to myself for some variation of the vegan diet being necessary but even that is not strict enough. Assuming for this rabbit-hole that eating organic material is definitely a source of cancer, then why would that be? If all plant and animal life is sacred then consuming any such life would be cannibalism. If doing so results in cancer it seems Nature does not approve. Cancer might be Nature's kill-switch to prevent any of its constituent parts from consuming or becoming the whole. The poison released by one kill or salad may not be fatal but such 'violations' will culminate in the defense of all remaining life against that particular predator. 

Another way to look at the NAP applied in this way is that cancer-causing elements in the deceased could vary based on the manner of death. Where a pig enduring the stress of a slaughterhouse releases more of the poison into its body than a pig who gets a surprise bolt through its skull. That pig didn't panic; it was chewing its slop and never knew an instant of fear. Free range chickens never knowing the stress of  a hatchery would offer less of a cumulative cancer risk; their minds have not flooded their bodies with additional toxins. Looking at it this way, Nature wouldn't seem to be looking to punish violations of life as much as punishing prolonged stress or torment. 

Nature: Consume life to sustain yourself if you must; I have ensured you do not do so in perpetuity and that every moment of fear, panic, and confusion in your prey is more poisonous than the last.

Consistent with this: humans suffering Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS) would be less desirable meals for the health-conscious human cannibal. As if life's ultimate defense is postmortem. The especially cruel cause their prey to be proportionately more toxic or maybe less delicious. Maybe a lion sneaks up on a sleeping gazelle and notices an improved flavor over yesterday's gazelle caught after a prolonged chase. I can't help but think of that drawing of a frog in a bird's beak but the frog's hands are outside choking the bird. I'd feel silly saying hunter-gatherers behaved immorally but could live suggesting they may not have had sufficient technology.

Editor's Note: This was a Twitter rant and has been edited. 

An Ethical Cost Of The Non-Aggression Principle

Suppose you inhabit a world where violent acts occur. You identify the aggression of one person against another as the common trait of those activities. An ethic called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) identifies that commonality as behavior which is desirable to oppose.

The identity of the ethic is limited to opposing aggressive behavior.

A necessary ethical cost of opposing aggression is a commitment to knowing if there is aggression, not how there is aggression.

A necessary ethical cost of opposing aggression is a commitment to whatever is without that aggression.

I contend that, by adopting the NAP, a person restricts themself from condescending to the manner in which others behave non-aggressively. To do so is to reject the peace they claim to hold the NAP's values in pursuit of.

Trump As Hitler (theory rant from March 2016)

The gist of this particular theory is: the (world's combined) Left might prefer/want a Republican to win in 2016. Which is one theory among many. It's just as easy to theorize that they want to keep the presidency. The tidbit that pretty much inspired this theory was a report/study from a few weeks ago, before trolling Trump's hands went mainstream, that claimed Hitler had a micro-penis. Just as 'Trump Is Hitler' and 'Fascism Has Returned (though it never left)' and 'Trump Is Finally Saying Out Loud What We've Been Trying To Warn You The Racist War-Mongering Baggers Have Always Privately Believed' claims were hitting a fever pitch, Hitler, whose every aspect has been scrutinized for 70 years, suddenly had a micro-penis when Trump's hands became a mockery. Instead of being another cultural parallel like white supremacy, economic ignorance, etc. between the movements behind Hitler/Trump, this new claim about Hitler, as Trump's hands were an item, provided similarities between the men/personalities leading those movements. So I couldn't help but think that this was tailor-made to help bind the roots of Trump's motivations/inspirations to Hitler's. Someone other than Trump would be bound to Hitler in some other foundational sense. Or maybe in the same way. Maybe it was always going to be a micro-penis.

This seemed like part of a deeper psychological effort than the rote gold standard of "Republicans are Nazis". In addition to shaming Republicans collectively as Nazis, leaders/notables are shamed personally as Hitlers. I was casually aware enough of politics during Bush's presidency to know Hitler comparisons are not new so I think the timing and convenience of micro-penis implies a seedy coordination that is more sophisticated than scribbling little mustaches onto Repubs'/Cons' pictures. If I take deeper coordination as a given, then what deeper plan is it serving? IMO, just that Hitler's penis is associated with the word 'research' lends any relevant comparisons a credibility that is not normally expected from or considered in the making of "So and So is a Nazi" protest signs. So, as Trumps hands come to be mocked and he and his supporters are inherently (though casually) compared to Hitler and Nazis, along comes 'credible' information which bolsters those comparisons. Maybe I can't relate to the financial and institutional means of the masterminds of this strategy that they could and would produce credible scientific/research material for the internet's digestion just for kicks. Coordinate and fund bullshit research only for it to be churned into irrelevance by the next day's or hour's meme du jour. That seems like a waste of time IMO but maybe I don't have the resources to contemplate that kind of latitude. Assuming for the purposes of this theory that Hitler's micro-penis is not a miraculous coincidence in this stranger-than-fiction world, what is that deeper purpose? 

Defeating Trump in the election seems like the obvious and maybe only purpose but I'm not sure comparisons to Hitler, however esteemed or credentialed their origin, are any more effective than giving Trump mustaches or putting Trump's head on the bodies of Nazis in the absence of actual fucking atrocities. Godwin's Law does not exactly suggest a tendency to grade each other's Nazism responsibly. Comparing a candidate whose policies haven't been enacted, whose theoretical genocide is pending until after the election, seems as irrelevant in Godwin's universe as comparing physical features. Where the candidacy of Hitler's clone would be un-phased by physical comparisons by virtue of Godwin's Cesspool. If scientific comparisons are no more persuasive than photoshops, why bother with the expense of 'credible', pre-genocide Nazi comparisons? Why hire a few (costly) experts to support your claim of someone's Nazism when you can scribble a mustache on their picture for free? Why the extra effort on a claim as legitimate in Godwin's Cesspool as claims without that effort? If defeating a political opponent is the goal and comparing them to Hitler is a tactic, why the extra time to organize or forge research when you can shoop a mustache on Trump for the same effect? Why waste time? 

I've criticized the claim that "people are stupid" (for doing those things present company would never do) even though it can feel so right. Ultimately, the claim is untrue or at least incoherent. Someone has asked if you can explain a 'bizarre' action/event and your response is to imply that:

1) while members of your species are stupid in general, you are not counted among them
2) that all humans are stupid and you are not counted among them
3) that all humans are stupid and you're one of them. 

I doubt stupidity survived as a dominant trait through ages of evolution so 1) incoherent 2) incoherent 3) incoherent. One way or another you've introduced or promoted an untruth to the world. However humorously or sincerely or privately or publicly you claimed that "people are stupid", I don't think it is true and I'm not sure it can be true at this stage in the evolutionary ballgame. At the very least, our competence to survive is ancient. If humans act purposefully and humanity persists, it seems that we must sometimes act purposefully to survive. Stupidity is not helpful in this regard. Long story short, we are freaky genius monkeys with a knack for survival that is more deliberate than whimsical. More careful than hopeful. Maybe grant that others have a good reason for doing what they're doing even if it is not apparent to you. Suspect guile before stupidity. 

So if Godwin's Cesspool regards all Hitler/Nazi comparisons not accompanied by genocides as equally frivolous, why the extra time to lend such a claim any scientific credibility? I have reasons to think doing so was not a deliberate waste of time. Then time was the answer. 

Instead of wasting time to fluff a tenuous comparison between Hitler's and Trump's hands that would only be sacrificed to Godwin's Cesspool, maybe the suggestion that Hitler and Trump have a micro-penis in common was meant to survive Godwin's Cesspool. That the credibility of the report was not wasted on the Cesspool but is intended to rise from it. To rise from the slime of comparing Hitler to a genocide-less Trump to a vindication of that comparison when president Trump comes to be responsible for a comparable atrocity. If the micro-penis comparison is intended to rise from the Cesspool it cannot reasonably be expected to do so only in the hope that Trump might do something terrible. It could only be intended to rise from the slime in the eventuality of an infamous event. Because I doubt Trump is motivated politically for the purpose of genocide or lesser bloodthirst, it seems that a massacre in his name is anticipated and will be drawn out of him whether he likes it or not. A drone attack 'meant' for Al-Qaeda actually kills thousands of civilians. Some kind of bad intel or betrayal that leads to a massacre worthy of Nazi comparisons or some unique infamy. A massacre that now validates every warning lobbed into the cesspool and incriminates every feature Trump and Hitler share, including a micro-penis. Where a credible report that Hitler had a micro-penis, once thought to be wasted in the Cesspool of comparing Trump's murder-less micro-penis to Hitler's, is now evident of a physical similarity between two notorious criminals. 

This may start to get weird. 

Granting there's a good reason to do so, why would the plotters of a scheme to lure Trump into Hitler-esque notoriety decide to promote a micro-penis as the feature these villains share ahead of all other similarities? Why is the evil a penis and why is it small? The people behind this scheme are party to a massacre they will then blame on a scapegoat. In this instance, the scapegoat would be a Republican president and his political opposition would benefit from the sleaze cast over that president and his party. I've said the best strategy for abusive power is to promote as much untruth as possible so that their opposition is as ignorant as possible. I won't rehash that now. If such a principled, abusive power staged this fake massacre in order to vilify a president and his party then it follows that promoting micro-penises as a relevant feature of mass-murderers itself promotes as much untruth as possible. Where the greater the threat a micro-penis is alleged to pose the less likely that threat. Where the bigger the penis the likelier the threat.

Editor's Note: The content of this post was copied from a Twitter rant on March, 6, 2016. Other than some spelling changes and a new format, nothing has been changed.

UPDATE: I want to be clear about what I am saying in the final passage because, upon further review, I think it is important. I am not saying is that it is true that the bigger the penis the greater the threat. I am not saying that in order to promote untruth you would claim that the smaller the penis the greater the threat. I am saying both claims are untruth . The fact that individuals act, not groups, and we do so with our brains (or at least not with our genitalia), absolves all penises from culpability. What I am saying is that you can promote untruth by blaming any penis. And I also think it is informative of the moral compass of the position-holder when a small/large penis is blamed. That, in their minds, if their strategic/moral worldview is informed by the irrational belief (held as truth) that larger penises are indeed a bigger threat, then to promote the most untruth as possible, they would blame smaller penises.

Antonin Scalia Could Have Been Assassinated

With all due respect to RedState author and blogger, Moe Lane, I disagree with the incompetence he assigns members of the Obama administration (and maybe by extension their sympathizers and cohorts) to dismiss the possibility of them executing a plot to murder Antonin Scalia.

Let's nip this in the bud: this administration cannot even run guns into Mexico without getting caught. Scalia died of a heart attack.

— Moe Lane (@moelane) February 15, 2016

Since the only inspiration I find to use this blog anymore is in the afterglow of a Twitter exchange with someone who has considerably more political and cultural influence than I have and whose acknowledgement of my offerings to the ether features aspects I can then ridicule in the hopes of provoking further interaction across media platforms, I would like to offer a critique of the tendency to flatly dismiss the most nefarious explanations as akin to flatly guzzling them.

@obamuh I can't help but think that if Obama HAD decided to have Scalia killed he'd have instead managed to somehow bump off David Souter.

— Moe Lane (@moelane) February 15, 2016

The Drudge Report's headline last week reported in red that Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his head. That the scant information available has the pristine, cryptic quality of also wrapping him in tinfoil is difficult for me to ignore. To grant this detail mundanity in an innocent or natural theory of events is to suggest that A) Scalia's eyes were covered out of respect by the first person who discovered him and that reports he was discovered with a pillow over his face are technically true of subsequent viewers and that this technicality, known (somehow) with certainty by those glossing over the pillow, was exploited in order to bait those without this super secret inside knowledge into suspecting foul play (and therefore into looking like conspiracy nuts) or that B) Scalia, as he lay dying, placed the pillow over his own face as part of either an obscure ritual or an attempt to smother himself in conspiracy.

The manner of death of a person in such a pivotal position is as scandalous as need be relative to the vogue of one's particular depravity so you can't believe everything you read. 24-hour rule. Remember, this is an election year and there is a lot at stake. Keep your eye on the ball. That's just what they'd want you to think. Let's not be hasty. So I can understand Moe cautioning his followers and readers from adopting the most sensational of possible circumstances surrounding Scalia's death, but he does so not based on evidence to the contrary or because unethical or illegal behavior would be uncharacteristic, but, in part, because a previous scandal, Fast And Furious, was exposed by virtue of an incompetence he implies would be symptomatic of all other conceivable attempts (or at least this attempt) at competence. He does not dismiss an elaborate murder plot for being an unlikely or unsupported possibility, but as something that certainly did not happen. With all things being equal, a claim as unsubstantiated as a murder plot.

Instead of crucifying Moe for thinking he can just tweet without scientific rigor whenever he pleases, I want to consider why he might have chosen the option he did. Why natural causes when murder is just as valid with the same information? Why natural heart attack instead of poison heart attack instead of no heart attack at all but that's what we're supposed to think?

In Human Action, Ludwig Von Mises describes all human action as purposeful and aimed at removing or alleviating unease for a more satisfactory state of affairs. So I wonder if the unease soothed by actively dismissing a murder plot springs from an unease to validate a motive or state-of-mind that is inconsistent with or inconceivable to the dismisser. Where a murderer's relative deviation (or perceived or necessary deviation) from one's own sense of propriety is rejected more satisfactorily as the unease of accepting the deviant as a fellow member of one's species or culture intensifies. Where flatly dismissing a murder plot absolves everyone of suspicion and liberates future pursuits from the complication or distraction of any unease not dispelled when the slightest consideration of a murder plot, in the absence of a perpetrator, implicates everyone. Where rejecting the most conspiratorial or intricate explanations might have the dual benefit of initially seeming sober and optimistic while also being the easiest to forgive in the event that the 'unthinkable' proves to be true.


TO BE CONTINUED....