In Support of Nullification

Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled questionably on several issues: Eminant Domain, Medicinal Marajuanna. In both cases, they ruled in favor of the continuation of increasing government power. For Eminent Domain, they supported the authority of local governments to take whatever they want for whatever purpose they choose--whether or not that purpose is "public" in nature. For marajuanna, they ruled in support of the broadest possible misinterpretation of the commerce clause: every human activity counts as interstate commerce, according to this court.

However, there is something odd about the marajuanna ruling. While they did not strike down the portion of federal drug laws that apply to marajuanna grown and smoked on the same parcel of property (where's the interstate commerce?) they also did not strike down the state law that permitted it. Basically, they said, "Well, the feds can do whatever they want, but so can the states. The states don't have to spend any time and effort enforcing federal laws they do not wish to." I wonder how far this principle could be taken? Because, while the ruling supports the status quo where the Commerce Clause is concerned, it may take us in the direction of a formal nullification principle! Both concepts are unconstitutional, but if we're abandoning the constitution--well, that sword cuts both ways.

This almost looks like the states-rights people did something very sneaky (and praiseworthy, if this is what they intended). This almost looks like a form of nullification. Basically, "Nullification" was an old idea that a state could pass a law in opposition to a federal law and prevent its enforcement within the state. While the option opened up for pro-marajuanna states isn't exactly an endorsement of open nullification, it does open the way for a curious form of obstructionism.

Basically, under the doctrine that the states are not under any obligation to enforce objectionable laws, no local, county, or state official has to take any action to enforce the law.

I can imagine a state deciding it doesn't like any of the drug laws. A law could be passed declaring that no state money could be used to enforce those laws, and what you'd end up with is a few federal agents making a few high-profile arrests, while a drug culture flourished and grew in the absence of support from local and state officials. Were a federal law sufficiently unpopular, a plausably deniable level of obstruction from local officials could occur. The way is paved by the marajuanna decision: that the federal and state governments may have conflicting laws, and so long as it can't be demonstrated that the state is using its power to stop enforcement of federal statues, no crime was committed.

I'm not sure how to regard this. Both the interpretation of the commerce clause and the negative nullification are blatantly unconstitutional, but I can't help but laugh at the fact that supporters of an absolute federal government are being mocked by the very monster they unleashed.

Legality and Morality

That which is legal is not necessarily moral. That which is illegal is not necessarily immoral. That which is immoral is not necessarily illegal. And yet, I am continually astounded by the number of people who cannot distinguish between legality and morality. I was brought to this topic by a little rhyme I heard a few minutes ago on KMJ. A doctor was quoted as saying, "Getting high because you're sick and going to die is not a good idea... because it's illegal."

Now, taken at face value, it's not that bad a statement. Regardless of the benefits, doing things that are illegal is generally little more than a way of making one's own life more difficult. One has to hide one's activities, constantly be looking over one's shoulder, and if caught, there can be serious consequences. Sometimes, despite the lack of a good moral argument against a particular action, it's just better to avoid the trouble doing something illegal can start. And if you're representing a group, it is best to avoid illegal activities altogether, since if your name is damaged, so is theirs.

The problem I have is when comments like that are made by people who really mean, "it's wrong because it's illegal." I am continually frustrated by the general inability of the average person to have a political discussion about our drug policies becase, "It's illegal." They trot that out like it's the trump argument, as if God Himself delivered our laws to us and we can't do anything about it. I suppose our political system is so confusing to the avarage person that, so far as they can understand, our laws really *are* some immutable force. But it's just so stupid.

Our laws are written by men we elect and send to the various legislatures that represent us. Those laws are enforced by men who we elect, and cases are judged by men who are either elected by us or appointed by those we have elected. So "it's illegal" simply cannot be a moral argument against an act, because our laws were written by men, and can be changed by men! There is nothing immoral about saying, "I disagree that this law ought to be." And yet, in our society, there seems to be a taboo against suggesting that an act which is illegal should not be illegal. I'll say, "I really don't see what harm there is in letting a guy smoke a joint in the safety of his own home. It may not be a good idea for him, but I fail to see how he harms others with his habit." "But it's illegal!" is the retort I have often gotten. Yes, it is. The point I am trying to make is it oughtn't be.

It's no wonder our legislatures are so unresponsive to the desires of the people. We've become sheep, regarding our legislators as instruments of divine will. So many people think illegal=immoral that it's nearly impossible to overturn a law once it has gone into effect.

I can just imagine these people cringing at the thought of sheltering a legally oppressed class. Nazis could be going around, hauling off Jews for slaughter, and the few who have the ability to distinguish law from morality will attempt to protect these people in whatever way they can. But the sheep will sit there and say, "But it's illegal!"

Incremental Liberty

This started out as a response to another blog, but it began to take the shape of a full-sized blog. So I've expanded it, and posted it here.

I think the sales analogy used by the reform movement is an excellent analogy. We want to sell them a constitutionally limited government. They may well benefit by it, but they are afraid that the cost will be too high. Now, when a salesman has a product that he really thinks is good enough it can sell itself, he gives out either a free sample, or offers a test drive.

So it is with what some libertarians might call “half-measures.” Take medicinal marajuanna. Some libertarians might say that doesn’t go far enough, and fear that if we go for that, many for whom that’s “far enough” will jump ship, and then we’re stuck with medicinal marajuanna, and don’t have total freedom where drugs are concerned. The belief is that if we get a compromise solution, the pressure the real world facts give for legalization will be allieviated, and people will no longer be looking for a solution. Good theory, but its obvious that strategy simply does not work. This is proven by the fact that drugs are still illegal, and almost nobody is calling for the repeal of drug prohibition--and those that do are labeled crackpots.

Government itself is like a drug. While some can quit cold turkey, many, if not most, need a more gradual cutoff. What I think more likely is that, if we support, and successfuly implement medicinal marajuanna policies, there will be two effects. First off, there will NOT be that amazing increase in crime and delinquincy that the hardcore anti-drug crowd predict. While they will try to say that’s because of the medical restrictions, most people will know better. The second effect is that, because of our involvement, others in the medicinal movement who were not previously libertarians will be exposed to our thinking on it in a friendly setting. They may consider that there are benefits beyond the medical uses of marajuanna to ending prohibition outright.

Another example is taxes. Many libertarians consider any and all forms of taxation to be "theft." Therefore, any policy that falls short of the complete repeal of all taxation (or, for the "lesser extremists" simply the outright repeal of the income tax) is sacreligious and must be vigerously opposed... even if the proposal is to lower taxes! This is what turned me off of the Libertarian Party for years. I remember reading the policy statement of a libertarian cantidate for some state office. This woman actually advocated the repeal of the income tax IN HER CAMPAIGN STATEMENT! Given that the office she was running for was executive, not legislative, how does that have anything to do with her election? What can that do but turn off someone who is not a raving extremist?

Now, understand that I, too, would like to see the repeal of the income tax... some day. There is much that must be done *before* that can happen, if ever. I, for one, favor replacing the income tax with a carbon tax. Such a tax could pay for government at current levels for quite some time, would reduce significantly the intrusion of government into people's personal lives, lower significantly the minimum business size necessary to do business effectively (benefiting small businesses), and have the added benefit of making tax evasion and conservation of fossil fuels (and lower pollution emissions) one and the same, meaning we automatically turn tax dodgers into fully legitimate environmentalists!

But, a hardcore libertarian would say, "NO! That's an increase in government power! The government does NOT have the authority to tax AT ALL!!!" Well, sorry folks, but 99% of the electorate and the very Constitution of the United States of America disagree with you. And furthermore, were we to somehow repeal all taxes TODAY, we'd destroy our credit rating completely. Our economy, so dependent on government cash flows, would collapse. Such a collapse would be temporary... assuming the masses of unemployed don't turn to violence to fill their bellies... assuming foreign governments don't use our failure to repay our debts as a pretext for invasion (and with no money to pay a military, they will win)... assuming a lot of things that just plain wouldn't be true. No taxation whatsoever is a great goal, but it will only be reached slowly. There are debts to be paid, and segments of the economy that need to be weaned off government money. A sudden ceassation will throw millions into joblessness, including soldiers. A slow weaning is not only actually politically feasable, it'll give these segments time to "see which way the wind is blowing" and find other options.

The statists have been nickeling and diming us to death for years. This was a natural phenomenon, since the big government people were split between the two major parties. Most who were involved in that practice really did believe they were doing the right thing (whether it be big-military Republicans or big-welfare Democrats), and though they opposed one another, because it is easier to create a law than it is to roll it back they took turns increasing every aspect of the government. Bi-partisan legislation also always seems to be aimed at increasing the power of government.

We need to nickel and dime them back. Extreme measures will never catch on. But if we manage to roll back the power of government a little bit, in an area that will benefit the largest number of voters, they’ll say, “Hmm… I like that. A little more, please?” The generation that reaches its age of influence under a smaller government will support smaller government still, so long as we’re not stupid about it. Even if we don't reach the dream of worldwide libertarian utopia, wouldn't you rather live under a smaller government than we have today? Or are you so accustomed to victim-thinking that even you are dependent on our current level of government?

The Libertarian-Progressive Alliance

Both the Republicans and the Democrats seem straddled between their extremist and moderate elements. The Republicans seem to be a coalition of economic libertarians, big business interests, and conservative religious-nationalists, and people who fear Democratic extremism. The Democrats seem to be a coalition of socialists, hardcore environmentalists, social libertarians, and people who fear Republican extremism. I have long thought that a new second party composed of the libertarians of both parties would work well, if only it could come into existance. The problem is that the libertarians of both parties are the sort that fear the other party too much to take the risk of letting the other party have too much control. As it is, the Libertarian Party--the theoretical home party for these people--is generally composed only of those who fear both major parties equally. How on earth could one pry these members of both parties?

Huh, I just came up with a possible idea. What if I came up with a sort of "matching service" wherin I matched up a would-be libertarian Republican with a similar Democrat, getting both to agree to jump ship of the other does. This isn't what this blog is about, but I may develop it in a future blog.

Lately, however, I have been hearing a lot about a possible collapse of the Democratic Party. Basically, the story is that the historically allied interests of the Party are finding themselves less and less allied. Labor Unions and Public Employee Unions don't necessarily get along. Socialists and moderates don't necessarily get along. Labor and Environmentalism don't necessarily get along. Democratic Hawks and Pacifists don't get along... the biggest split during the 2004 elections. Career bueraeucrats don't necessarily get along with everybody else.

The first place I heard about this was the Sean Hannity Show. Not the most credible source, I admit, but that was the beginning. That was the first time I heard someone else say it. The next place was in an article that can be found at The Heartland Institute, which predicts a Democratic Party split by 2008 which will be followed by a similar split in the Republican Party. This article at the Ashbrook Center shows that people have been talking about this as far back as 1998. Thomas Harrison speaks of "the demise of the Democratic Party." The Red Critique in a socialist diatribe talks of "the all but 'official' collapse of the Democratic Party." The Daily Pundit states "In the US I expect a huge realignment of political parties, starting with the Democrat's collapse..." The Armed and Dangerous blog speaks of "Post-democratic possibilities," my favorite (and his) clearly being his "Case Gold."

Personally, I think the only thing holding the current party system together is the previous generation's fear of the other party's extremes. There is a reason lefties compare the Right to Nazism... compassionate conservatism contains enough socialist elements, and the religious right enough nationalist elements, that a very real America National Socialist entity can be percieved by one who fears that possibility. For the Right, the Left has done enough flirting with the worldwide Communist movement in the past for many Republicans to see the shadow of Stalin (or even Napolean, among the more historically minded) in a Democratic victory. There are potential Libertarians in both parties... but they fear their opposing major party so much they don't dare break away and hand victory to either Hitler or Stalin..

A Democratic collapse would change everything. If the far left (the greens and the reds) abandoned the Democrats, the remaining rump would hardly be large enough to oppose the Republicans. With the baggage ejected, three possibilities emerge. The Democrats, with the Big Government reds and greens gone, could become a more libertarian party, and both Libertarians and Republicans actually jump into the newly invigorated Democratic Party. Or, the Libertarians somehow manage to clean up their image and stop clinging to the nineteenth century and libertarian Democrats say, "What the heck; we're not doing any good over here anyway," and go ahead and join the Libertarian party. Many libertarian Republicans follow as the Libertarians become more and more credible as a real alternative. A third possibility is that the Republicans crack immediately afterward, and that an electoral free-for-all results, with a temporary multiparty (more than two) system results, which shakes out into an upper-lower quadrant divide, rather than the right-left divide we have today.

I discovered Holisticpolitics.org while researching this issue, and let me tell you: this is an excellent site. It contains elements that have the potential to marry the libertarian movement, the progressive left, and even the religious right! Seems impossible? Perhaps it is, but in the event of a real electoral shakedown, this upper-left quadrant style of thinking just might become popular. (Today, none of the major political entities occupy the upper-left quadrant; see the site for what I mean by "quadrant.")

I do believe there is an opportunity for a new political entity to arise within my lifetime.

Eminent Domain and Solomon

I wonder how many people are actually surprised about the recent decision regarding how far the power of eminent domain streatches? They really shouldn't be surprised. This has been going on for as long as written records have been kept. Consider Ecclesaiastes 5:8

If you see a poor person being oppressed by the powerful and justice being miscarried throughout the land, don't be surprised! For every official is under orders from higher up, and matters of justice only get lost in red tape and bureaucracy. Even the king milks the land for his own profit!

This is just government behaving in the way it always does. Not even our vaunted "democracy" preserves us against this. Certainly the "parchment barriers" of the Bill of Rights are no defense against this.

I wonder if local governments would go through with this if they knew full well that the poor posessed the means and the will to excercise their very basic right to defend their own property rights? This is the real reason for gun control. The government cannot grow when people posess the means to defend their rights themselves. Therefore, the means must be taken away.

Foreign Policy

I'm pretty certain I have stated my opposition to the Iraq war in the blog. Indeed, I have even at times said and written things that might indicate that I am an isolationist. I want to take the time to state that I am not, and show what I believe our foreign policy ought to be.

First off, we need to remember that any alliance we make should be temporary, directed toward specific goals, and potentially dissolved once that goal is achieved. However, that does not mean we should ever be without an alliance of some sort. Far from it. The reason I think obselete alliance organizations ought to be dissolved is to make sure that everybody involved understands that is is an alliance, and not a surrendering of soverignty. As time passes, people change, and a people that made a great ally for a previous generation may not necessarily be such a great ally today. A former enemy may be capable of being a new ally. And the institutional leadership of such a body may need to be changed in a way that reflects the reality of who who has the energy to lead in such a way.

Thus, with the USSR no longer in existance, I believe we ought to withdraw from NATO. The problems European face today are problems they really should be able to handle themselves. If they wish to continue NATO, that's fine; let them redefine its purpose, perhaps a committment to continental peace and mutual defense. What why do they need our help with that?

Having done so, we should create a new alliance which has as its purpose the mutual defense of nations that have a good record where the respect of individual liberties is concerned. Presently the greatest threat is that of rising militant ideologies--militant Islam among them, but it is hardly the only one. Religeous freedom--the separation of church and state--ought to be the cornerstone of this alliance. Note that this does mean that in countries with a strong religious presence, we should be tolerant of expression of that religion in their society, so long as coercion is not a part of the program. We should also be tolerant of a failure to "promote" prograss through coercive government programs--something our colonialist European forbears were not tolerant of. Our goal should not be the promotion of the "secular state" in whatever form it appears (as the Europeans preferred secular dictatorship to religious democracy). Our goal should be the promoting of ANY form of government that results in respect for individual property rights and religious expression--even a traditional monarchy or even theocracy that is restrained from excesses of power by a slavish devotion to tradition..

As we see today, "democracy" is no guarantee against individual rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that local governments have the right to take property from one private party and give it to another (paying a pittance for the property). I would be inclined to accept as an ally a monarch that refused to allow such practices occur, rather than a democracy ruled by a people with no respect for liberty. I would accept a limited, constitutional monarchy or single-party rule before I would a majoritarian tyranny. At least a king can be dealt with, where foreign policy is concerned. The majoritarian tyranny is a headless monster that can be neither predicted nor controlled.

So lets create an alliance with other nations that respect individual rights, whatever form their political machinery takes. Let us not judge the trees by their leaves, since we will never know what the best tree will look like in the end. Let us judge the trees by their fruit.

The Garden of Eden

I just want to posit a possible reading of the Fall of Man story, incorperating Daniel Quinn's ideas, adding a few of my own. Starting from the beginning of Genesis 3, I'll list each element as I come to it:

The Serpent: Snakes, when they shed their skin, gain a very deathlike appearance. But if you continue watching, the snake comes out, alive and well. Perhaps some people during the period during which this story was constructed made a leap from a live snake coming out of a dead snakeskin, to a live human spirit coming out of a dead human body; ie. they first came up with the idea of the Immortal Human Spirit, and another realm to which it belongs. If this is what the Serpent refers to, then the writer considered this to be a deception, that rather, "...you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Genesis 3:19) Perhaps a belief that death isn't necessarily final leads men to believe that we can do whatever we want, the consequences being merely temporary and leading ultimately to a higher existance.

The Woman: Anthropologists speculate that agriculture grew initially out of women's traditional role as gatherers of edible plant materials (the stereotypical division of labor between hunters and gatherers). Perhaps it was women who first went about the business of what Quinn calls "Totalitarian Agriculture," simply because men were too busy hunting to develop this idea, the idea that humans ought to make the choices of good and evil (that is, to rule the world) to increase their food, rather than leaving it to the gods. That is, they ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, men followed suit rather quickly, as agriculture reduces space for hunting food.

The Man: Followed the woman into a lifestyle that involved the subjugation of matters of life and death to mankind. Representative of a single culture: those that practice our way of making a living.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: Eating from it is analogous to using one's ability to rearrange the biosphere in an effort to increase one's food supply and the expense of others.

Nakedness: The realization that there is something very wrong happening with our culture...

Fig leaf loin coverings: Religion of human invention, a futile attempt to deal with the problem of what's gone wrong by pretending we have nothing to do with it... covering up the fact that our way of life is the very thing that will destroy us.

The Serpent's Curse: I'm not really sure... and I feel like this is important. Quinn has dismissed the Serpent altogether as an actor in this story, but I'm not ready to do so...

The Woman's Curse: Perhaps this refers to the fact that the birth of new societies out of old ones, in our culture, in response to changing conditions, is always done violently.

The Man's Curse: There is no doubt that agricultural societies work harder for a living than any other.

The Flaming Sword: WAR. Very simply put, if anyone attempts to "return to the Garden of Eden," that is, to attempt to live in the way all men lived before all this happened, he is rather quickly subjugated or eliminated by his neighbors. War is a fact of life, and the main reason we have to work as hard as we do is to support the armies that protect us from our neighbors. If anybody tried to live as an aborigine in the United States, he would rather quickly be taxed out of existance (an aborigine can't afford to pay property taxes, and would be chased off someone else's land). Try it in a place where property taxes aren't a problem, and someone is bound to cut down your forest, plant crops, and shoot you if you try to say anything about it.

The Error of Capitalism

Here I am, reading yet more from Danial Quinn, and I find myself thinking about the fundamental difference in worldview between Capitalists and Socialists (in the either-or fashion), and finding myself forced to re-examine my own position on the matter... and at the same time coming closer to finding the "third way" beyond, not between, the two extremes.

Basically, what Quinn said was this:

the knowledge that every single action God might take--no matter what it is, no matter how large or small--is good for one but evil for another

This got me thinking about the notion that every bit of wealth one gains is a loss for another. Very simply put, many people have the unconcious notion that wealth is always gained at the expense of another, and thus you can identify the wealthy as some kind of cheat, by default. You may not know the exact mechanism by which they cheated, nor do you have to: because wealth is a static thing, a gain by one is a loss by another, and thus the wealthy are all scoundrels who cheat others out of their fair share.

On the other end is the Capitalist, who recognizes that trade isn't about one cheating another out of their share, but rather about this equation: one person has more of item A than he wants but less of item B, while a second person has more of item B than he wants but less of item A. The two trade A for B, and both are enriched by it. Even if the first is smarter than the second and gets a better deal than the second, both have more than he began with at the beginning. Had the trade never occured, the second person may not have ended up with relatively less than the first, but he also wouldn't have as much of item A as he wants, and far too much of B. So, trade is good, and wealth is simply the result of being better at making such transactions.

The thing is, I am coming to recognize that there *is* a reservoir from which all this extra stuff comes from. Human labor transforms natural resources into commodities—things that people can eat or use. In the case of things we can eat in particular, the natural resource in question is animals and plants. Hunter A may have more meat than he needs, farmer B may have more grain than he needs. They may trade meat for grain, and in the end, both have a better meal than he would have had otherwise, but the wealth wasn't created by the trade. It was created through the death of another living creature.

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the death of other living creatures. All creatures live off material that was once the living tissue of another creature—yes, even the green plants, which draw nutrients from the soil, by-products of the action of bacteria feeding on the remains of another living thing. Humans are no different, nor should we think we can be otherwise. As long as we continue to exist, we will subsist of the death of other creatures.

The question to be raised is, what happens when we run out of living creatures to kill? For the herdsman kills more than he needs, in order to trade with the farmer and feed his children. The farmer plants more than he needs, in order to trade with the hunter and feed his children. As generations go by, there are more and more people, but where did the things that make up their bodies come from? They came from other creatures.

This is fine, as long as we live in a balance with the rest of the ecological community. But this is not how we are living. Our population continually grows at the expense of the rest of the ecological community. This doesn't seem to be a problem, until one realizes that if we keep growing, eventually, we'll reach a point where we are eating more than the ecological community can replace. We have already gotten to this point; this is why species go extinct at the rate they do.

Even this wouldn't be a problem, if all we were doing was replacing grass and deer and trees with wheat and cows, but the thing is, we're now converting areas to farmland and pasture that simply cannot support this sort of thing for very long. Eventually, farmers *do* ruin their land. Eventually, the soil becomes totally leeched, and formerly productive land becomes wasteland. This is as true in the developed world as it is in the developing world, though, if I understand correctly, it happens even faster in tropical regions. Cut down the rainforest, and you end up with a thin topsoil that blows away in the wind, leaving a worthless wasteland.

So what will happen when we finally run out of other species to eat? Why, we'll have to eat each other. I sincerely doubt this will be conducive to an enjoyable lifestyle, particularly if we set upon one another with the same gusto we set upon other species. While one can imagine "recycling" becoming our typical death ritual (eating those who pass away from natural causes), I can easily imagine death gangs being set up to "harvest" less economically productive humans to feed the more economically productive ones—the rich will feed upon the poor in a very literal sense.

Ugh, this is yet another "True Ramble" on my part—where the heck was I going with this?

Oh yeah, the whole Capitalist Worldview vs. Socialist Worldview thing. Basically, so long as we continue to think of the resources of Earth as being essentially infinite, we will eventually reach a point where we have run out of resources. The Socialist is locked in an earlier time when our exploitation of resources was limited, and thus wealth was typically gained at the expense of other human beings. But now, we are much better at extracting wealth from the Earth itself, and now it is not the Poor that suffer and the hands of the rich, it is Everything (including the poor, though the burden on them is less than it was in the past). Even the poor of this country live better than the wealthiest during the middle ages (they didn't have air conditioning, for example), but it is other species that suffer as a result of our opulance. Now, I don't really believe in "animal rights," but I do believe that the ultimate result of doing this completely thoughtlessly is that, one day, we're going to find ourselves without any natural resources to exploit. Then, we will starve.

The question is, what does one do about it?

(BTW, if anyone has a problem with the irregular pattern of my posts, the "non-weeklyness" of the Ramble, drop me a line. If I have any actual readers, I'll try to regularlize it again, rather than simply treating this as a repository of my thoughts.)

The Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

My wife and I are re-reading through Daniel Quinn's The Story of B again, and we found ourselves debating about the viability about Quinn's hypothesis regarding the Abrahamic story of The Fall of Man (meaning, the Garden of Eden). It's on page 95 (of my edition, anyway), the story of The Tak. In this story, he defines some of the features of totalitarian agriculture ("...chickens may live but foxes must die... wheat may live but chinch bugs must die... Anything we eat may live, but anything that eats our food must die—and not merely on an ad hoc basis. Our posture is not, 'If a coyote attacks my herd, I'll kill it,' out posture is, 'Let's wipe coyotes off the face of the earth..."

He then claims that we have a record of the moment we assumed this attitude, from an outside observer. When asked the viewpoint of "some nomadic herders of ten thousand years ago" regarding who decides what lives and what dies, Fr. Jarred Osborne's answer was, "The Gods." B then identifies the knowledge of who lives and who dies with the knowledge of "good and evil. "What the Zeugen (the Witnesses) perceived is this, that every choice the gods make is good for one creature but evil for another, and if you think about it, it really can't be otherwise. If the quail goes out to hunt and the gods send it a grasshopper, then this is good for the quail but evil for the grasshopper. And if the fox goes out to hunt, and the gods send it a quail, then this is good for the fox but evil for the quail. And vice versa, of course. If the fox goes out to hunt, and the gods withhold the quail, then this is good for the quail but evil for the fox."

He then released the zinger: "When the Zeugen saw what the Tak were up to, they said to themselves, 'These people have eaten at the gods' own tree of wisdom, the tree of the knowedge of good and evil.'"

After going back and forth about how much this explanation makes sense to Jarred and every biblical scholar B has spoken to about it, B goes on. "I felt I had to bring this out in order to drive home the point I've been trying to make about this revolution. Even the authors of the story in Genesis described it as a matter of changed minds. What they saw being born in their neighbors was not a new lifestyle but a new mind-set, a mind-set that made us out to be as wise as the gods, that made the world out to be a piece of human property, that gave us the power of life and death over the world. They thought this new mind-set would be the death of Adam—and events are proving them right."

I hope I have provided enough of the text to demonstrate Quinn's message to one who has not read The Story of B. (I highly recommend it, by the way.) First off, I want to say that I think this explanation to be the most probable I've ever heard... indeed it's the only probable explanation I've heard. Up to now, it was just a really old story, the origin of which we could not possibly know. To begin by presenting our agricultural policy—no, our very worldview where the subject of food and other species are concerned—as the cause of our ultimate destruction of the world, and then go on to say that the second story in Genesis is another culture's "I told you so" before we went an absorbed them, gives Quinn an indirect claim to an authority he seems to deny... a religious claim. Indeed, he has identified the Original Sin, through which Death has entered, but that Death was not the death of individuals, but the ultimate Death of the Whole World: Because we are set upon devouring the whole community of life, once we are done with it, we must then turn upon one another, and then the destruction will be complete.

However, my wife wasn't so much concerned with the particular interpretation of the Genesis story than with Quinn's story of where it came from... a claim she thinks is flawed. Earlier in the book, he writes against those who "angelize" "leaver" peoples (hunter/gatherer/garderner/herdsman types), but then he identifies a neighboring "leaver" tribe as the wise ones who pointed out our error long before the nature of it could possibly be apparent. On the one hand, we can't possibly imagine how life will be in two-hundred years, any more than reniassance thinkers could possibly imagine the ultimate consequences of their own thought revolution. However, somehow the Zeugen managed to do exactly that, or so Quinn seems to suggest. I tried initially to argue that the origin of the story isn't necessarily important, that Quinn is just telling a story... but then I put some thought into it.

I identified a consistant tradition within our own culture that could very well have reacted that way to the mind change that produced what we today call the "Agricultural Revolution." Let us go deeper into speculation about that period of time, and I shall tell a little story that makes even more sense to me.

Once upon a time, there were a group of farmers, of the old type. These types planted their crops, protected them, but had no "agricultural policy" per se. If a wolf or lion came to kill their sheep or cattle (or children), they would kill that individual wolf or lion. If they found rabbits in the vegetable garden or deer in the corn patch, they would kill and eat that. Generally, they weren't very ambitious about creatively increasing yield. Indeed, much of what they ate still came from the wild plants and animals that surrounded them. And when the crop failed, or herds were eaten by predators, they simply sighed, resigned to the will of the gods.

Then one day, someone got the brilliant idea of going out and killing as many wolves as they could, to better protect their sheep. They started building fences. To avoid drought and flood, they came up with the idea of dams and canals, to channel the water advantageously. Little thought-of by them were the species that depended upon the old arrangement of things; their ideas were progressive, and brought greater comfort to the people living there.

There was another group, however, that were appalled by this. To them, drought was the will of the gods, and to dare try to prevent drought—it was unthinkable! To them, success or failure in the hunt, whether by men or by beasts, was the will of the gods, and to attempt to rig the system was a horrible overturning of the natural order of things, a rebellion against God. They argued vociferously against the new changes, predicting dire punishments from the gods if this continued. A few generations passed, prosperity continued, the new way of life spread at an incredible rate (spurred by population pressures wherever this new way of life was adopted), and generally, the prophecies of the nay-sayers were generally forgotten. Indeed, it's a wonder that the Genesis story even still exists.

Does this look familiar? Look at medical history. Every time somebody comes up with a potential new way to prevent or treat disease or injury, there's always somebody piping up with the notion that whatever it is they're meddling with is the province of God, not men, and should not be meddled with. Whether it be air-conditioning (to help sufferers in warm environments), vaccination, or today, genetic engineering, scientists and doctors (and their predecessors) have spent nearly all of recorded history having to answer the charge of "playing God." This is the common thread, which can easily be imagined to reach all the way back to the first to tell the story that ultimately made its way into Genesis.

Now, to comment on the matter itself...

Of course, we always believe that life is better now than it was before, because of these advances... but look at what else it accomplishes. It brings comfort to a generation or two... and as a result of that comfort, that generation or two breeds at a higher rate than the previous generations. More food equals more births. Better medicine equals less death. The two together result in higher and higher population, which requires even more advances to reach previous levels of comfort, which opens the floodgates for even more population growth. There are those who think we can continue this cycle indefinately, that scientific and material progress will ensure that we never outstrip our resources, since we end up discovering more every time we need to.

But what happens when we finally reach the limit on—not iron, oil, or any other mineral resource, but biomass? What happens when the population of the world literally reaches the point where we have eaten everything? According to Quinn, 200 species go extinct every day, and not because we are careless, but because we need to make room for ever more food production. Rain forests are devoured by would-be farmers, for miniscule returns. I have little doubt that, so long as our population has the food to grow, it will grow, with medicine, sanitation, and engineering making possible greater and greater population densities. Every time we think we've conquered yet another source of death, be it disease or strife, we simply bring ourselves closer and closer to that Ultimate Death, that point where we literally experience worldwide famine, and the ecosystem is literally so ripped apart that it can't recover in time for us. Then, we go extinct, and evolution starts over again at the microbal level.

So what do we do about this? I don't know. I mean, it's one thing to say "make less food" or "pollute less" or something, but its quite another to figure out a way to actually get people do do this. Quinn says that its enough to change other people's minds on this matter, that people with changed minds will find ways to implement the change in their daily lives. I do hope he's right, and I do hope that, if I have any readers, at least some of you come away with some notion that there's something going wrong here.

So... go read Ishmael, and The Story of B, and possibly more. I can't think of anything else to say, or do, about this subject.

Your Daily Muslim: Europe & Islam

Your Daily Muslim: Europe & Islam

I follow Murtada Shah's blog pretty regularly, and I wanted to comment on it in a more expansive way than I could in a comment.

He says "From one perspective, Muslims are taking a severe hit in Europe, but I'd place at least half the responsibility, if not all, squarely on our own shoulders." I'd keep it to half. The other half goes to a culture (a collection of sub-cultures) that has failed to adopt ideas that flowed in its own midst probably two-hundred years ago. Religious tolerance is not unknown in Europe. Cultural diversity is not unknown. The separation of church and state is not unknown. Indeed, those ideas were first spawned there, though they never took root, as they did in America. Europe has a hostile attitude toward aliens, plain and simple. The Muslim experience in Europe is not new; it was once called the Jewish experience, and look what happened to them!

Simply put, Eurpope has, as it did in the time of Rome, a strong "Cult of State." Back in the old Roman Empire, one could worship any god one wished to, so long as one honored the Emperor over all (other) gods. So long as one participated in the Imperial ceremonies when it was called for, one could continue to worship one's own gods without interferance. This was a problem for those whose gods demanded to honored alone, such as the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jaccob (and Ishmael?).

Jews had the advantage of being a small and stubborn minority. They were often given an exception to the requirements, being required to pray for the Emperor, rather than to the Emperor, as others were required to do. Not so for early Christianity, which grew too much for it to be anything but an enemy of the State. Now, Christianity was corrupted when it was co-opted by the State, in the person of Emperor Constantine, and so became a part of Europe's cultural heritage... unless, of course, you are a heretic. In Europe, so long as you follow a watered-down version of Christianity that places the State above God, you can be accepted. Any other sort, and you are shunned. France claims to separate Church and State, but from what I hear, what they actually do is subordinate Church to State. Islam, of course, cannot be tolerated under these circumstances.

Aliens who come to the US can generally make a place for themselves here. Immigrant districts are tolerated, and when they prosper, they are even celebrated, such as the China Towns scattered across the West Coast. There are, of course, ghettos with higher crime rates due to a disfunctional reaction to different circumstances, but that's nothing new in our experience. It started with the Irish, moved on to the Italians, on through a kaleidescope of immigrant groups that had a difficult time adapting their culture to the circumstance of freedom. If there's a bunch of North Africans, Arabs, or Turks in a particular section of town, causing problems for themselves, the city will likely wring its hands, the police assigned to that district will probably be a frightened group, but its nothing new. The only group that has failed to integrate is the group that was brought here against their will.

This is because we don't "integrate" them. We have no official programs. Though freedom erodes in this country, traditionally, we have said, "You may come here, but don't expect a free ride." We have no official language teaching programs, no official cultural indoctrination programs, no requirement except that the people that come here respect our laws, and our laws are traditionally matters of personal justice, of protecting the rights of individuals against the encroachments of others, both foreign and domestic.

Properly, the murder that occurred recently in France and has stirred up so much turmoil ought to be regarded as a murder. The boys who are involved ought to be brought to trial and punished for murder (we'd call it first degree murder here in the States). It doesn't matter that they had some kind of "religious justification" for it. If anyone from the community tries to help them escape justice for the same justification, they ought to be brought to trial for obstruction of justice. Very simply put, it ought to be treated as a felony, not as a crime of thought, religion, or culture; however, the reaction in France shows very clearly that the majority in that country are less interested in justice than in submission to the Cult of State.

If that were not the case, then I'm sure most Muslims could integrate themselves into European society. It may take a few generations, but it could be done. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Qur'an that justifies that killing. And if there is, I could probably find a way to justify it using the Christian Bible, as well!

Bush Considering Amnesty

I have recently learned that George W. Bush is currently planning to try to reintroduce an amnesty bill to Congress. This gets my mind whirring.

My first thought is, what the heck is Bush? Is he a Conservative, or a Liberal? He certainly isn't scoring any points with his conservative base by trying to do this. They'd probably like to kick out even the legal immigrants, if they could. He certainly won't win any liberal bleeding hearts by trying to do this, though he may confuse them for a bit. Perhaps it's that he has no political needs now. He's in his second term, and it really doesn't matter what he does. He doesn't get to be president again. Perhaps he has another reason.

Here's one possibility. Border Republicans tend to see the immigration issue differently from other Republicans, so far as I can tell. Interior Businessman Republicans probably don't care much one way or the other about the issue, so for Interior Republicans, it's probably the National Purity folks who control immigration issues. However, on the border, immigrants are often a significant economic resource. In addition, influence from more recent citizens may be felt in the Republican party of that state, meaning Nationalism is weaker there. Perhaps this is why Bush is doing this. He's trying to secure cheap labor for his original supporters back in Texas.

But there's another possibility. Perhaps he is actually being principled, now that he no longer has to be a politician.

Illegal immigration is an issue I have always been concerned about. Personally, were it up to me, immigration would be restricted only by the rate people could be checked in at immigration and customs ports. (Along with this, people who crossed anywhere but a legitimate port of entry would be treated as a foreign invader, and could even be shot on sight by military personnel posted along our borders, rather than in foreign countries.) The acquisition of citizenship is another matter, but I believe that if someone wants to live and work here, he should be entitled to do so. This country was built by immigrants, has a history as being held up as a beacon for the oppressed masses of other countries, and has long reaped significant economic benefits from a steady stream of new people. Natives tend to get fat and lazy; it's immigrants that come to work hard, and they probably value our freedom more than the natives do.

It's a hard life for an illegal immigrant. They have access to jobs only when someone is willing to risk it, they have to find ways to slip through the cracks where driver licensing is concerned, they are generally exploited as cheap labor and have nobody to turn to. They have no access to the protection of the law, because any contact with law enforcement may result in deportation. So why do they come? Why do they stay?

Because staying here illegally is often better than staying somewhere legally, especially if you desire what we call the "American Dream." I know a man who was born in a rather nasty, violent country, who went to Europe as a refugee. He was naturalized, became a citizen of said European country. Then he came here illegally. Why?

He wanted to own a business, his very own business. He wanted something he could share with his sons, a way to support his family, he wanted the pride of ownership, of being able to say, "Look at me. I have succeeded where others have failed. I am my own boss. I am a free man." In the country where his presence was legal, due to harsh government controls on business and property ownership, he could not do this. Oh, he and his family did well enough. They had a place to sleep, food to eat, decent education for their children, and his wife could stay home and take care of the children. They had access to some kind of medical care. For most of us, this would be enough. Many of my readers would probably say he was crazy to turn in that life for the one he chose, life as a fugitive from immigration law. But for him, and for many in this country, it isn't enough to have material comforts. Those things don't make one free, they merely make one a well treated slave.

So he came here, and you know what? He succeeded. He had a better chance of living his dreams here as a fugitive from immigration law than back in Europe as a citizen. Mind you, it took years of struggle and privation. His family went for some time without enough to eat, but in the end, he was supporting them well, with the work of his own hands, as a small business owner. Most Americans today probably don't understand what the big deal is; this is why I favor free immigration. This man is, in many ways, far more "American" than most people who are born in this country! He desired freedom, he acquired freedom, and we condemn him for this!

Perhaps Bush is looking at the people—these decent, hardworking people, and realizes, deep in his Compassionate Conservative heart, that it is unjust that people who have made a life here should be persecuted for it. After all, the Feds simply haven't been doing their job; how else could these people have come here so easily? How is it they remain without being caught, without even being investigated? We pass tough immigration laws, then fail to enforce them, and continue to be the best place in the world to live for those who desire freedom; can we blame them for coming here, when their home country probably persecuted them for that desire? Don't tell me about not "respecting the law." Laws exist to serve the cause of justice, and since this situation is unjust, the laws ought to be changed, and the victims of the unjust law granted relief.

THE URBAN ARCHIPELAGO

A response to the above.

A friend of mine recommended I read this, and at this time, I am glad I did. At first, this article angered me. The writers' attitude displays a typical hostility toward suburban and rural types, the sort typified by the following:

Citizens of the Urban Archipelago reject heartland "values" like xenophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia, as well as the more intolerant strains of Christianity that have taken root in this country. And we are the real Americans. They--rural, red-state voters, the denizens of the exurbs--are not real Americans. They are rubes, fools, and hate-mongers.

The whole thing goes on like this. If you, being offended by the attitude these people have toward small towns and rural areas, fail to read the whole thing, you might miss the ending:

These, of course, are broad strokes. We all know that not everyone who lives in the suburbs is a raving neo-Christian idiot.

Gee, thanks. I feel so much better now. I'd drop points from this paper, were it not made clear throughout that this is not intended for people who are not part of the club. It's a call to action and redefinition for liberal urbanites, not a retort to the other side. Though I find this sort of hateful arrogance offensive, it does nothing to dilute their message.

Don't get me wrong. I consider myself to be a liberal urbanite, despite my residence in Fresno, CA (a "small town" of 500,000). I admire the cities, I admire sensible, clean high-density living. I hunger for high-capacity data lines, the ability to get everywhere with my feet alone (whether those feet are on the sidewalk or the floor of public transit), and I recognize just how painful the car culture really is (not that I have much of a choice around here). I like recycling, I am not opposed to gay marriage (though I'm not especially supportive, either), I think abortion ought to be legal (whatever my reservations about it), and I am virulently against the Drug War. I just don't think you get anything done by calling other people "stupid."

However, once I reached the following:

In short, we're through with you people. We're going to demand that the Democrats focus on building their party in the cities while at the same time advancing a smart urban-growth agenda that builds the cities themselves. The more attractive we make the cities--politically, aesthetically, socially--the more residents and voters cities will attract, gradually increasing the electoral clout of liberals and progressives. For Democrats, party building and city building is the same thing. We will strive to turn red states blue one city at a time.

I realized what this was really about: minority politics.

When I say "minority politics," I don't mean politics having to do with racial or cultural minorities. I am referring to the sorts of ideas that I am beginning to realize are always promoted by the minority party. The further I got into this article, the greater sense I got that at this point, many Dems would prefer it if the Republicans just got out of our life and let us live as we will. Take this for example:

The lesson is simple for urban residents: Seattle shouldn't cast its lot with the rest of the state. Rural and suburban voters have shown again and again that they aren't willing to fund urban infrastructure. Throughout Washington State, transportation taxes like 2002's Referendum 51 have tanked, while anti-transit measures like Tim Eyman's I-776 have passed overwhelmingly. While that might seem like grim news for cities like Seattle, there's a silver lining: When cities set their own transportation priorities, truly urban systems (like the monorail) get funded and built, while the suburban mega-highways that lard initiatives like R-51 go unfunded. We don't use suburban roads. We can let the suburbs figure out a way to pay for them.

The impression I get is that the writers might actually think the cities can take care of themselves if they just didn't have the interferance, or even the help, of the countryside. Indeed, in this:

We officially no longer give a shit when family farms fail. Fewer family farms equal fewer rural voters. We will, however, continue to support small faggy organic farms, as we are willing to pay more for free-range chicken and beef from non-cannibal cows.

it almost seems that the writers think that the market provided by urbanites might be enough to encourage the sort of agriculture they support! Where's the call for laws outlawing the bad ag? Where's the call for a share of the nation's tax dollars to give to the good farmers? I'll tell you where that call went: it went away with the Democratic majority. Without their realizing it, the debate went from "the progressive party vs. the don't-take-my-money! party" (Dems vs. Repbs) to the "party of middle america vs. that other party" (Repbs vs. Dems). As I have said before, I have found myself with the choice between a party with convictions I don't agree with and a party with no convictions at all. Well, this article is a call for those convictions to be defined, and I can agree with many of them... if they seriously mean it.

It is obvious that the writers of this article belive that the cities can spend their money better than the countryside. The writers say repeatedly that the urban areas should, as far as possible, secede from the countryside (something that would actually be possible under the system I have described earlier, btw). They should promote their own agendas, and forget their bleeding hearts where the suffering of rurals are concerned. They should realize that the health care crisis affects those other people more than it affects urban areas, that federal welfare props up rural areas more than it does urban areas (and are, indeed, siphoning off of money from urban areas to the countryside), that federal programs like Homeland Security are spent disproportionately in irrelevant rural states, rather than being concentrated in the more likely targets and entry points (cities and borders). This all sounds so familiar...

Could it be that it sounds like the Republicans only eight years ago, who accused the Democrats of siphoning capital off of productive people and giving it to people who are not productive, encouraging them to continue to be so? It does to me. It sounds a lot like the attitude "the feds should just get off our backs" that so many Republicans had in those days. In those days, Republicans were all for shrinking a government they thought unneccesary, wasteful, and did nothing but promote urban values very much against their wishes. The Democrats were blamed for the deficit, for "tax-and-spend" policies. Well, what is happening now that they are in power? They probably spend even more that the Democrats did when they were in power!

In short, the Republicans weren't interested in shrinking the government. They only wanted control. They didn't want to end the redistribution of wealth. They simply wanted to redivert it to their own supporters. They didn't actually dislike cultural regulation. Actually, they like it quite a bit, so long as they are in control. Though laws requiring that dark skinned people, women, and gays be respected are instrusive and unwanted, many of them would gladly require at the federal level that the school day begin with the Pledge of Alligence and a prayer, and ban forms of art they find offensive. In short, they don't really want Liberty and Justice for All. What they really want is Control, just like the Democrats did, and had, for a very long time.


So, to the writers of this article I ask, do you really mean what you say? Do you really think the cities could go it on their own, and they we really should leave the country to manage itself as it will? Are you really willing to drop trade barriers to food, so the cities have an alternate source in the event that the countryside of this country goes up in smoke? Are you really willing to stop trying to regulate guns at a federal level and concentrate on keeping guns out of the cities?

Or is this just a smokescreen you're putting up since you don't really have the power to do what you want, anyway? Have you seen the error of your ways, or are you just a bunch of hypocrites, like the Republicans? You talk this way now, but what will you do when you have regained control? Will you begin the process of dismantling the machinery by which the Republicans now opress you, or will you gleefully take control of it, forgetting the rhetoric you now employ? Remember: you participated in the creation of this monster. Do you truly wish it were gone, or do you just want to get back on its back?

You say the cities need to focus on getting their own tax dollars spend on the cities. Are you willing to take the power of taxation away from the feds and, where desirable, the states, in favor of keeping local funds local? Or do you really want to concentrate all the tax dollars in the cities, believing that city money wouldn't be enough?

Personally, I think there are enough people in both of the major parties that would like to see an end to federal meddling. If they could just realize they have a common cause at the federal level, and that they need not interfere with one another at a local level, they could probably get something done. If these people would just abandon their control-freak allies and join forces, we could finally put an end to this. The larger the government becomes, the more it sucks to lose control of it. At a certain size, the losers lose the luxary of being a "loyal opposition." Let's shrink it, together, and stop meddling in each others lives.

Personally, I've always thought of myself as a Libertarian where federal issues are concerned and a Democrat where local issues are concerned. I agree that cities need decent regulation and public action, but the cities should also foot the bill. There's nothing worse than a society whose urban class has become parasitic, other than perhaps a parasitic countryside (which is a recent phenomenon). If we would just drop federal (and state) taxes to the bare minimum necessary to keep order and defend (not offend) against foreign adversaries, the cities and the countryside would get exactly what they deserve, no more, no less. If the people of the cities and the countryside could just leave alone the question of who deserves what and just trust that each can take care of itself without the other's domination or tax dollars, things would be better.

The Story of B

I have encountered the writings of many incredible people over the past few years, but none resonate so greatly with my own view of humankind and what's wrong with it than the writings of Daniel Quinn. In short, his view is that there isn't anything wrong with humankind as a whole, but only with one particular culture: our culture. By "our culture," he is referring to intensive agricultural peoples, East and West. Very simply put, if you put more food into a population than it needs, that population will increase. Our lifestyle is designed to always produce more food than the population needs, so the population is constantly increasing. The problems we see today began thousands of years ago (not tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago), and are simply the result of overcrowding. The other problem is that we could see this for ourselves, if we didn't have such blind faith in our own system.

He suggests that what we need isn't simply a change in what we do; we need a change in the way we think. He doesn't know how the people that think in a new way will live, any more than the people who first began living our way could have predicted the way we live today. The change is that we need to stop thinking that we were created to conquer and rule the world, and that anything we do is excusable, and need to start living in a way that won't end up driving ourselves to extinction.

Unfortunately, this blog isn't flowing like water like I'd hope, so I'll cut to the chase.

Ultimately, the changes we need to make are no longer material changes, they are moral, spiritual changes. We have plenty of food. Indeed, over the whole population of humankind, we have always had plenty of food. How else could the human population have kept increasing as it had? Hunger, starvation, and famine are localized things, limited to specific classes which are denied food by other classes, or specific populations which are denied food by a localized crop failure, and a lack of other food sources to fall back upon.

In this day and age, there is simply no excuse for hunger. In the past, logistical difficulties could be considered an excuse—a food surplus in one place means nothing to a faraway land, due the difficulty of getting it there. But today, we have trains, trucks, airplanes, even spacecraft; there is no difficulty getting food from one place to another, when necessary. We don't need to increase production. We need, instead, to get the food where it needs to be. Probably the best way to go about this is to change the way we go about producing food.

Intensive agriculture is not good. It is probably one of the most pollutive activities we engage in, as my groundwater studying wife knows. It is an undiversified approach, meaning a crop failure is a total failure. When the whole land is covered in farmland and asphalt, a plant disease, a new insect pest, or anything that can cause a crop failure causes a famine.

Probably better is to localize food output more. Rather than relying upon "bread basket" areas to feed entire nations, perhaps we should find ways of getting more food out of other areas, and perhaps getting less food out of the "bread baskets." It might be good to leave more land completely uncultivated, so that, in the event of a crop failure, we can fall back upon the resources the wilderness provides, back on what little hunting and gathering can provide at least until a food shipment can be brought in.

Unlike Quinn, I do not consider the teachings of Jesus to be necessarily a part of the problem. Rather, I think that, were his teaching held to, we would not be in the mess we are in today. We and our ancestors hold to two different ideals: Do not murder, but love your neighbor and hate your enemy. Thus, it is okay to murder our enemies. Do not steal, but love your neighbor and hate your enemy. Thus, it is acceptable to steal from our enemies. Love your neighbor and hate your enemy—but Jesus directed us to love our enemies also! Do not murder—but Jesus directed us not even to think ill of our brothers! Do not steal—do not even covet the things of others.

Were our civilization truly a Christian civilization, we would not be in the mess we are in. Jesus told us to love our enemies, and Moses told the Jews not to steal, and yet we have stolen the land of every people we have ever encountered. Do not even curse your brother, Jesus said, and yet we have declared as unfit for life every person and every thing that is not directed toward the goal of maximum productivity. We continue to do this today—I have little doubt that the primary motivation behind the Iraq war was gaining control over their oil resources. Its the most likely reason Bush will not privatized the oil resources of Iraq: a government can always be pressured, but a private citizen can choose where he sells. The oil, owned by the government, can then be used to pay back debts to the United States, debts which, ultimately, are owed to the corporations the Bush family, and George W in particular (as well as the Saudis and Bin Ladens) have been entangled with for years.

I'm getting off the subject. If we would simply respect the property of others, we wouldn't be in this mess. We would never have reached the population level we have, because there are many cultures that actually prefer living the way they do, rather than maximizing food production. These people are inevitably swept away, though, because that which we cannot trade for we take by force.

Think about it. Back in the early days of the United States, treaties and land deeds were handed out to the native populations. Those treaties and land deeds were then ignored, and the natives expelled from their land. It wasn't ours, it was theirs, and we took it from them. If you believe in property rights, our ancestors had no right whatsoever to do as they did. It doesn't matter that they didn't know to draw up land deeds. Our land deeds merely record and specify land rights, they do not create them. The moral thing to do would have been to draw up a land deed for them, and then respected those deeds and demanded that others do the same. They would have been, of course, transferable, as all property is, and those that sold willingly (and the considerable wealth our culture generates would likely have been a considerable incentive), would not have been cheated. We'd probably still have considerable pockets of land where sustainable food production practices are practiced. There'd be no need for a national park system; they would be the national park system, where they didn't end up adopting our ways.

But, instead, we stole, and we continue to steal. There's something else we're doing today.

I recently heard a story about how a Native American population (in Canada or Alaska?) had to be relocated because the ice on the lake they normally went ice fishing on every year (a vital source of food for them) was no longer thick enough to support their weight. The culprit: global warming.

Now, suppose one of our own farmers noticed that his land wasn't producing the way it had in previous years. Suppose he discovered that the reason was that a nearby farmer was engaging in a practice that not only poisoned his own land, but the first farmer's, as well. He would have standing to file a civil suit against this other farmer, demanding that he cease his activities and/or pay reparations for his actions.

Yet we as a culture readily dismiss the claim that when our activities harm someone who is NOT of our people, it's not our problem. What is the difference, where justice is concerned? Is it that we are so callous and indifferent a people that, without judges and officers, we will quickly fall upon one another in a predatory fashion? That can't be the case, since we established those authorities in the first place.

Hah! My first real ramble in years. Now, where was I going with this?

Don't get me wrong. I think there is a place in the world for our style of civilization, I just don't think the entire world is that place.

High Tech Barter

I have been considering what a financial system without a "legal tender" would look like. Obviously, it would be barter based, and everybody who is anybody would look at that idea and hold their nose. We all know the benefits of high finance; our economy couldn't function without it—or could it? Journey with me into a fantasyland (or is that science fiction?) of high finance, by high tech barter.

Suppose you work at a factory, say a Capri Sun plant (as I once did). Today, you go in to work, work your eight hours, and go home. You then pick up a check, written in dollars, every two weeks. You then spend those dollars on food, clothing, rent, and whatever else you want or need. Those dollars are backed by the legitimacy of the United States Government, and nothing else. Their value is determined by the combined policies of the United States Congress (who affect it through taxation and spending) and the Federal Reserve (who affect it through the manipulation of interest rates).

Now, imagine there is no "dollar." Imagine, instead, that you have to get paid in Capri Sun. That seems a real inconvenience, since you probably don't have much room in your home to store the stuff, and the time required to sell it off would likely be prohibitive. And without a medium called the "dollar" to smooth that transaction, it's all barter. And since your factory probably makes enough Capri Sun to quench the thirst of an entire state, it likely would have little value in your hometown, making you rely on traders, which is cumbersome... it's all very difficult.

However, you don't necessarily have to be paid in the stuff itself. Instead, you could be paid in "Capri Sun Dollars," or something like that. They'd probably have an expiration, which would preferably be connected to the shelf life of the product. Now, you can store a lot more Capri Sun in your house; they can be redeemed for Capri Sun anywhere they are presented. Shipping them would be easier; you could ship them via first class mail, and let traders and companies worry about getting the product around. But, you still have to trade it yourself...

But how bad would that be? I'd bet there'd be some people who would love the opportunity to try their hand at trading. And in this day and age, they wouldn't even have to leave their home to do it; there'd be plenty of places on-line to do it. They'd just deposit their Capri Sun Check with some financial transmission institution (who'd take a small cut for their service in maintaining the integrity of their network), and transmit it to "bigbarterplace.com" where their Capri Sun share would be registered, and they could engage in an exhilerating round of trading. Ebay is already positioned to do this kind of business; they'd just have to allow bids to be in terms of something other than dollars, and act as a sort of "holding center" for product shares. It'd probably be a lot of fun for some folks, and would result in a vibrant economy.

But for some, bartering isn't exactly their cup of tea. For these folks, we'd have "barter banks." Banks would once again be in the business of issuing their own currency, and would employ barterers of exceptional skill whose sole purpose would be to trade and trade and trade, attempting to accumulate a good quantity and variety of stuff for the bank. People who don't want to barter would go to a bank and deposit their commodity checks; the bank would issue them bank notes in return. They'd probably either have partner stores, or run stores of their own, at which these notes could be spent. They would serve the purpose that "legal tender" currently serves, and the best part is that no central administrative body could influence the system in any particular group's favor (particularly its own). The market would determine any and all prices. If some chain of banks attained a monopoly, that would only smooth the system out even more, but if the monopoly became abusive, people could go back to bartering. They'd still have their commodity checks, and could bypass an abusive system.

So what would government officials get paid in? Well, we refer back to my discussion on a Senate elected by contributors, and the logical conclusion suggests itself: political influence via the Senate.

"Government notes" would be paid to any employee with access to a market in which those notes could be traded. They'd also be paid to any suppliers, whether they be the ones providing office chairs for the bueareaucracy, or bullets for the military. These individuals and companies would then trade these notes on the open market like any commodity note, and anyone with a political bone to pick would very likely be willing to buy it. The value of these notes would be directly related to the demand for seats on the Senate, which would be influenced by how badly people want to tell other people what to do, or else.

The thing is, all the resources the government could acquire would be voluntarily given in exchange for government notes. The government could print them like mad, and all they'd end up doing is inflating the value of government notes, unless there was a real demand for government action. It wouldn't affect the rest of the economy much at all, since the only thing a holder of that note is guaranteed is the right to vote for a Senator, proportional to the number of notes held. In a society that loves government action, notes would likely trade like dollars. In a society that doesn't, they'd be just another low-value commodity.

It's an interesting thought. I'd like to know yours.

Republicans and Democrats

I have long considered the question of which of America's major political parties I should join. Shall I join the Republicans or the Democrats? It's a harder question than one might think.

I believe in the equal protection of civil liberties, but whose civil liberties? Because, when it comes right down to it, joining a party means chosing a side. Shall I consider the civil liberties of the religeous right over those of others? Then I should be a Republican. Or am I more concerned about blacks, or immigrants? Perhaps I should vote Democratic. The rich are a minority who's rights are always at risk in a Democracy, so I should vote Republican. But then again, the Republicans are generally insensitive to women's rights, so I should vote Democratic. Which party shall I choose? Because neither is concerned with civil liberties in general, only pitting some groups against some others.

What about the economy? It used to be that if one cared about economic liberty, one voted Republican. But can there be any liberty in a system which favors shareholders over anyone else? Perhaps I should be a Democrat. This one is the easiest one to dismiss both parties over. The Democrats tend to raise taxes and spending. Republicans may lower taxes, but they end up raising spending anyway, handing most of it over to their supporters in the defense industries. Sometimes I wonder if they do this knowing full well the Democrats will be in power soon and raise taxes for them. Republican-style economic liberty is nice, so long as you accept an economy dependent on and subordinate to the military-industrial complex. Then again, the Democrats aren't planning anything different.

How about foreign policy? Which do I choose, a party that is composed of representatives from the defense industry, a religious element that considers the United States of America to be a holy nation with a mission to punish sinners and keep foreigners out, and an element that blindly follows them—or the party that nominates a man who insincerely mirrors the Republicans' nominee? Shall I vote for a party that has convictions I don't believe in, or a party that has no convictions at all? I might have voted for Howard Dean, on his anti-war stance alone—but that's not what the Democrats are about. The Republicans may be composed of people who blindly follow a cabal of men from the defense and energy industries, but the Democrats seem to blindly follow men who will say anything to get elected.

I've been considering this question for over eight years now, and have not found a satisfactory conclusion. However, the Republicans and the Democrats are NOT the only options available.

I am happy to announce that I have officially joined the Libertarian Party.

In Search of a Monotheist Synthesis

Lately, I've been taking the studying of religious texts and praying rather seriously. I have found myself in the company of a wife who is equally inclined to do so (meaning she didn't do so before this, either), and have come to the conclusion that just because one can't be absolutely sure about anything in this area, that doesn't mean one can't behave in a way concordant to that which one is reasonably sure of. After all, engineers successfully used Newton's Laws for centuries, and that didn't turn out to be any sort of Absolute Truth. It was just True Enough For Our Purposes. And I think the existence of a One True God is reasonable enough to act according to.

The upshot of this is that I'll be blogging about religion, as well as politics, in this space. I may even stop blogging about games, which I am starting to think a bit fruitless. This isn't my old Weekly Ramble. So this space will likely take a more serious tone.

The thing is, I have never trusted any Organization of Men to be the sole possessor of the Truth and the People of God. I look around, and I see many people proclaiming the worship of God, people from all over the world, many with different historical backgrounds. I'm talking about Jews, Christians and Muslims, Zoroastrians, Stoics, possibly Brahman Hindus (forgive my ignorance), Sikhs, and so on. I look at the traditions and texts of these peoples, and see similarities. I see decent people in all these groups, and I see really cruel and evil people in all these groups. I can't believe that, for example, God loves all who call those Christians, no matter what they do and think, but hates all who call themselves Muslims, no matter what they do and think, or vice versa, or Protestants and Catholics, or Jews and Everybody Else, or anything like this. The very idea goes against the very core of my being.

I also can't believe that, outside that group of people descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, that the whole world was without any road to "Holiness" (whatever that means), before news of Jesus reached them. I see forms of Monotheism which have sprung up throughout the world and have had features similar to "Judeo-Christianity;" why can these not have been God's way of reaching out to other people? Shall we condemn Others simply because they are not Us? Shall we place the Cult of Nation over the Worship of God?

All this could well be based upon my own ignorance. Seeing surface similarities, I am inclined to lump them together as different people from different places and times, all honestly seeking God. Perhaps I could be wrong. I intend to deal with that ignorance. In the future, I'll be blogging about my experiences studying various religious texts. At present, I am working on the Qur'an.

Redrawing Democracy: The First Defender Revisited

Recently, I've taken to studying up on the history of Islam. In the process, I found myself wondering how a "two branch" government could be constituted, one which lacked a Legislative branch, due to the existence of a corpus of laws (such as the Shariah, if I am spelling it correctly) which a nation believed sufficient for all things, interpreted properly. And, of course, law is interpreted by judges. Most Islamic lands had a traditional body which did just that (which argued continuously over how liberally to interpret the Qur·’an and the Shariah), which, due to the strength of tradition, was a real power to be reckoned with by the rulers of those lands.

With the preexistence of such a body of men, and the preexistent of such a body of law, the only question that remains is how to constitute an executive branch. While thinking on this, I came up with what I think of as a rather novel idea. The basic idea behind it is, rather than directly electing a chief executive, and making all his underlings appointive, why not instead elect the underlings, and have them select a chief executive for themselves?

You start by making a decision as to how large you can make a community without the people totally losing touch with their rulers. You then divide the country up into sections, perhaps using the method I described earlier, perhaps using some other common sense method. You then let them elect one person to serve as their protector, sort of a "chief executive" for that precinct. That person then becomes responsible for law and order, and perhaps services, within his area.

These people make a decision as to whom they need to be able to work with in order to do their jobs properly, say all the "captains" in a city (or even a particular section of the city), or a number of villages in a contiguous rural area. They then elect someone to be in charge of them, and he becomes responsible for the whole area, and coordinates their efforts where necessary. Their votes would, of course, be weighted by the number of people they serve (in the case where you're not trying to actually divide the country into divisions with an equal number of people).

Those people would then do the same thing the people under then did. For example, the guy in charge of a city would get together with the people in charge of nearby towns and rural areas, and *they* would appoint someone over them, on up to the point where the highest men in the country are appointing the chief executive.

What this would result in is the people that are in direct contact with the people are directly responsible to those people. The people above them are directly responsible to them. Nobody is ruled over by anyone abhorrent to them, and the directly elected men could serve as a sort of "buffer" against a chief executive gone horribly wrong.

These men would do their best to uphold the law in the places they are responsible for, but they would still have to bring the accused before a judge to actually enact punishment. "The Law" can have any source under this system (whether created by an elected legislature or handed down by a prophet such as Moses or Mohammed), these executives would still have to subject their judgments to the judgments of learned men selected by one means or another.

Anyway, I thought it was a cool idea. I do hope someone posts their thoughts (preferably about the method for creating an executive branch, rather than my ill-informed comments about religious law).

Copyright Feudalism

Imagine a feudal land, one in which land is held by a coalition of powerful lords and minor landholders. There are many other people under this system, peasants and serfs who are under the nobility. These people are unable to produce anything from the land without the permission of the nobility, and the nobility charges whatever prince they choose.

The land is recorded on deeds, but the deeds are held privately—they are kept by the owner of the land. The responsibility of defending those claims falls upon the property owners as well, which means they all maintain personal armies to defend their land. When someone attempts to work their land without their permission, they send soldiers to take everything they own, leaving them destitute.

There is land out there that nobody owns. Indeed, there is much land which is not presently in use, because it has either been farmed to the point where it was ruined, or it never had any immediate farming value in the first place. There have been peasants who have gone out to this unused—and often unowned—land, with either shovels to remove rocks, or piles of manure to re fertilize the land, and eke out a meager existence, free from the tyranny of the nobility.

The problem is that it is impossible to tell who owns the land. The deeds are held privately, and though there is usually a historical record as to who originally owned the land, one can never tell who currently owns it, if anybody. There have been many such serfs who, seeking freedom, went to what seemed to be unclaimed land, created a life there, only to be persecuted by soldiers of an owner who has neglected the land. As a result, nobody finds freedom on the free lands. Only the existing nobility can afford to even attempt to work the free land, because they have money enough to exploit it.

That's the way they like it; it binds the serfs to them very effectively, and ensures that nobody will ever emerge who can compete with them in the agricultural goods market.

Such a land exists. It is called the United States of America, except instead of land, it's ideas which I am discussing. Instead of a feudal nobility, it is the existing coalition of media corporations. Instead of serfs and peasants seeking the free lands, it is creators who, much like the founders of these corporations, seek to use historical materials (as Walt Disney did with Steamboat Bill Jr.) as a basis for their own cultural creations. Instead of privately held deeds, it is unregistered copyrights. Instead of the great mix of unowned and owned but unused lands, it is the great mass of images and sounds which might be used in everything from documentaries to music videos, but cannot because their copyright status cannot be determined except at great expense (or risked at even greater expense). Instead of soldiers, it is lawyers, both for destroying those who dare seek creative freedom, and determining what of the mix is part of the public domain.

Does anybody else see a problem here?

Master of Magic 2

First off, an apology to my political readers (there may be two or three of you :p ). This week, I will not be talking about politics or a form of government. I have done little more than play Master of Magic this week, and have had little interest in the outside world.

I was going to talk about what I would like to see in a Master of Magic 2, and I'm glad I decided to do some research into the subject before writing this. It seems that software company Stardock, maker of the 4x space conquest game Galactic Civilizations, it testing the water to see if a Master of Magic 2 would be a profitable undertaking. To me, the answer is obvious. Get the word out, get a big company's marketing department into gear, and MOM2 would certainly be profitable—though one wonders if one can allow a big company to even touch licensed material and not screw the game up. It's a bit of a catch 22. If Stardock makes it, it'll probably be good, but will enough people know about it to make it profitable? If Atari (who owns the license) makes it, it'll probably be profitable, but would the people in charge care enough to make it good?

If you're interested, go here and post about it. Now I'll ramble on about what I'd like to see in a Master of Magic 2.

First off, don't remove anything. Don't reduce the number of wizards, units, races, or heroes because you're doing it in 3d and don't want to have to pay for the sheer number of 3d models necessary to do a game that was originally done with 2d graphics. If it can't be done in 3d on a reasonable budget, do it in 2d. It can be really nice, high resolution, animated, 2d graphics, but if going 3d means reducing content, go 2d.

Don't change the magic system. Change the magic domains already provided, and you change the game. You might as well not call it Master of Magic; please don't corrupt the brand just because it'll bring in more money to call it that. Life, Death, Sorcery, Chaos, and Nature; I can't imagine adding anything to that system, nor removing anything. One might decide to subdivide the system, or perhaps make inter-domain specializations (for example, an Elemental Earth focus that makes it easier to cast Earth Elemental—a Nature spell—and Cracks Call—a Chaos spell, since they are both earth based, but makes it harder to cast wind mastery—a Sorcery spell—and... oh, I don't know, Summon Sprites). But the Nodes system is great as it is, and I don't want to see it altered too much.

I wouldn't even change the races too much. I have read that gnolls are “useless,” but I have also read that gnolls are great if you ignore ruins and nodes, and focus on eliminating the other wizards early on, before they've developed too much beyond swordsmen and cavalry (of which gnolls are probably the best in the game). And, of course, if you eliminate a wizard early on, you get their cities, and can use those cities to develop more advanced armies while your gnolls continue to harass the other wizards.

Don't remove spells. I'm sure one might have concerns about play balancing, but I suggest one of two approaches. If one simply is too lazy to really put the effort into balancing the rather large number of possible spells (and possible strategies and exploits), don't bother grabbing the license. Just make a non-MOM fantasy style civlike game. However, the other possibility is to allow the player(s) to remove spells before the game begins. Just provide an interface by which the players in a multiplayer game can haggle over what spells they will allow and what spells they won't, and let them run with it.

Now, as to what I would add. First requirement is obviously updated graphics, sound that works on modern machines, and better AI. Please don't replace the music wholesale. I can't hear it now, on my modern machine, but I remember it being pretty cool. As to AI updates, simple things like having the AI actually move about strategically even when there is a city wall (sending cavalry forth to fight a bit before returning to the fortress, if such can be done so with the possibility of them escaping alive), making it smarter about having their spellcasting heroes use their missile attack rather than cast spells under certain situations (like a node battle), and a better simulation of diplomatic behavior would do it. Another thing that would be nice is to have different levels of difficulty be based upon different levels of intelligence and aggressiveness, rather than relying so much upon production bonuses and absolute gang-up situations. Watch your people who are totally new to the 4x experience play, and make the computer act like them (less efficient exploration algorithms, squandering of resources, novice tactical mistakes, etc.) Give your Impossible level access to the nastiest exploits the players can find—and don't even *make* the Impossible level until the game has been out for a bit, and the worst exploits (the ones you don't intend to patch) are found. Release it in an update.

One poster at Stardock's Galactic Civilizations forums said something about more than just two planes. I think this is a great idea, but unless the extra worlds have more to them than a palate shifted color scheme and more space to colonize, I'm not really interested. We need more races for each plane, more terrain types, more wizards, etc. All this is more graphics, more play balancing, more work. If Stardock is really up to it, I'd love to see a system by which each magic domain has its own world associated with it. This is how each place would be justified.

Arcanus and Myrror would represent the intermixing of the mundane and arcane magic which defines Master of Magic. Arcanus is more mundane, Myrror more magical, but both contain elements of the other plane, since magic exists in both. These two worlds would remain mostly as they were in the original MOM. Towers would continue to be the chief door between the planes of Arcanus and Myrror.

Nature magic would have an “origin” plane. This plane would be inhabited by faeries, wood elves, maybe stone giants (all summonable creaturs from MOM, except wood elves), maybe beastmen, and other races appropriate to such a setting (two more would be good enough). It would be hostile to organized settlement. Plains would spontaneously change to forests and swamps, limiting food supplies and population sizes. Rampaging monsters would be very common. On the other hand, nature nodes would be 3x in power (while other nodes would have no power whatsoever).

Chaos magic would have an “origin” plane. The landscape would have lots of hills, mountains, and volcanoes. Inhabitants would include wild elves (or gray elves? gotta have some kind of elf in every world), maybe dwarves and trolls, possibly fire giants, definitely efreet, etc. Spontaneous volcanoes would threaten settlement, as well as the rampaging monsters (Hydra and Great Drakes would be a disturbingly common sight).

Sorcery Magic would be a plain of mostly islands (if not a great cloud kingdom), and high mountains would characterize these mountains. Djinn, Najas, sea elves, and others would populate this domain. Freak storms (air elementals) and sky drakes would threaten organized settlement, as would the common lack of dry land.

I'm not entirely sure what to do with Life and Death magic, if anything. Though one can imagine conquering the elemental worlds, how does one enter the world of the dead without actually being dead? Obviously, angels and demons are summoned from somewhere, but how can one tread the world of The Gods (and indeed, they do exist in MOM, since they occasionally give an artifact as a gift). Perhaps this whole thing makes the idea of creating the Magic Planes a bad idea. Or maybe one need only leave out the realms of life and death. Or maybe neither is necessary; perhaps there is a way to do it that is cool, and I haven't thought of it.

One possible way transitioning between the worlds could work is to have magic nodes, much like towers in the first MOM, be distributed evenly between the worlds. The nodes could be the doors between the worlds. Perhaps other types of nodes wouldn't even exist in the magic planes, but rather more of that plane's type of nodes would exist, unlinked to the other worlds. Under that situation, the nodes could be regularly powered (or perhaps double powered like in Myrror), and the reward is access to more nodes in the magical worlds.

The races that correspond to summoned creatures in Arcanus and Myrror would be designed under the assumption that, when you summon a creature, you're getting basically a random group, the “spearmen” of that race (unless the picture very clearly defines a sword, as in the case of fire giants). Actual military units would be potentially even more powerful, though they could only be used on their home plane at cost, which would be high, in gold, and perhaps even in food (like giants). If one wanted to use them on Arcanus and Myrror, one would have to enchant them with a survival spell... every bit as expensive as the summoning spell. The same could be true of units native to Arcanus and Myrror—they could not go through a node without a special elemental survival spell being cast, something that enables them to pass through a volcano into a world of blazing heat, or swim through eldritch waters to the other side of the sorcery node, or disappear, mist-like, into the wild world of the nature node.

But, all this is purely optional. If it's going to bog development, keep it to a slightly updated MOM. Maybe save all that fancy extra stuff for MOM3, if MOM2 is successful enough to justify doing an experiment that may potentially destroy the franchise (as MOO3 seems to have done).

While we're on 3d graphics, how about 3d gameplay? When you've got a combat involving flying creatures and land creatures, it just might be cool to have aerial dogfights and such between angles, demons, cockatrices, units of griffon riders, and such. Maybe even give flying units different maneuverabilities, looking to Master of Orion (2) for examples of how this can be implemented. Make the less maneuverable units also less hardy, able to have their wings clipped. Give them altitudes, and differing levels of advantage depending on whether they are higher or lower. Heck, while we're at it, do the same with hilly and mountainous terrain for ground units. Having the high ground is always an advantage, particularly if you have bowmen in the group. Castle walls can do the same thing.

If not other planes, then how about other areas of the game world? Wouldn't it be neat to have to deal with merfolk and fishmen at the bottom of the sea? Or how about a subterranean realm? Though the extraplanear gameplay seems a bit threatening to me (as something that could seriously ruin the game if done wrong), these areas seem like natural extensions of the existing game, perfectly appropriate to a sequel.

More places to live means you need more wizards, both more options to play with and more competing in the game itself. I was always disappointed with only four opponents (accustomed to seven in Civlization), and if you have loads of other places to go, you definitely need to potentially have competitors in those places.

And, of course, multiplayer mode. At the very least, one should be able to play turn by turn hotseat mode, by email, or over a network (including the Internet, of course). Maybe set up a way to easily hook up with other players, if not running a server themselves, then at least providing a program which interfaces with the game. Timed simultanious turns should be implemented. And while talking about this with my wife, I came up with another idea: the bathroom break button. You hit it, the other players agree to it, and the game is totally paused (ensuring nobody is penalized by answering the call of nature.)

Yes, I am very excited about Master of Magic 2. It should be very cool.