Perri Nelson's Website

Natural rights, the state of nature, and society

2013-03-15T04:50:15Z

As I indicated yesterday, I’ve recently had a couple of discussions with people that don’t really seem to understand today’s topic. I even had one today regarding of all things immigration. In that conversation an individual made this statement.

…the only principle one needs is ‘open immigration’ as a consequence of absolute individual rights.

This attitude represents a gross misunderstanding of individual rights and their relationship to an ordered society. Our rights are not “absolute” by any stretch of the imagination. They are given to us by God and they are a part of our very being, but there are limitations upon them. For the irreligious, agnostics, or atheists out there that don’t accept the notion that they are given to us by God (I do feel sorry for you) the fact remains that they are fundamental, unalienable rights that arise as a consequence of our existence.

They are not granted by government. They are not granted by other men. They are a part of us. In that sense they may seem absolute, but we must consider the existence of other men.

Assume for the moment the existence of no society. Men are in their “natural” state, or as John Locke called it “the state of nature”. Here all men have perfect liberty and freedom to do what they will with themselves and their possessions. Property is defined by taking something from the commons. No man needs to ask permission of another. We are completely free within the bounds of the law of nature.

This is true for ALL men in the state of nature. No man depends upon another for his liberty. No man requires the permission of another to feed, clothe or shelter himself. All are equal, and all are equally sovereign. There are no constraints upon our liberty except those imposed by the law of nature.

In the state of nature, our individual natural rights appear absolute. In the state of nature there are no borders. In the state of nature we are beholden to none and the only law that constrains us is the law of nature. Yet it is by this law of nature and the equal sovereignty of all men that we learn that our inherent natural rights do have natural boundaries.

Do I have the right to life? Then by extension so does my neighbor. Prudence and wisdom dictates that if I wish my neighbor to respect my right to life then I must respect his as well. The very law of nature teaches the wise man to learn the golden rule. Do I have the right to take from the commons a piece of fruit for my nourishment? To claim it as my property? To eat it? So too does my neighbor. If I take it and spoil it I have done my neighbor an injustice and violated natures law.

May I take a bit of sheltered land from the commons and claim it as my resting place for the evening? If I then make improvements to it, enhancing the shelter and comfort it provides do not my actions make it mine? Can not the same be said for my compatriots?

This is the state of nature. Natural law prohibits greed, for we can only take that which we can hold and use. Natural law requires that we respect one another’s rights lest our own be infringed. Natural law shows us that our rights cannot infringe upon those of another for we would not abide another’s infringement upon our own.

In the state of nature, there are some rather obvious fundamental, unalienable rights that each of us has by our very being. Each man has the right to life, to liberty, to property, and to pursue their own happiness however they see fit. Beyond this, it is clear that all men have these rights equally, and that all are equally sovereign, empowered to punish violations of the law of nature as they see fit and in proportion to the severity of those violations.

Why then would a man abandon the state of nature to enter into a society or to submit himself to a government? Quite simply for more security, safety and comfort. For while absolute liberty may seem a wonderful thing, mankind, in the state of nature, lives a precarious existence. Foraging for food, without agriculture (a product of society), is time consuming and by no means certain. Without some form of weapons technology (either a personal invention or a product of society), hunting for game is also by no means certain. Living the life of a hunter/gatherer is fraught with peril and filled with labor. For survival’s sake men must band together and cooperate.

Human nature rears its ugly head as well. It should come as no surprise to anyone that men will seek pleasure and be self indulgent. No one should be surprised to find that men avoid work wherever they can. It should come as no surprise that some men are physically stronger than others, that some men are inconsiderate of others, that some men are simply bullies. And no one should be shocked to find that in such circumstances as man might find himself in in the state of nature absent our better nature and the constraints of a society that some men will take advantage of their greater strength to infringe upon the rights of others – taking from them the food they have gathered, casting them out of the shelter that they have provided for themselves and so forth. For though in the state of nature all are equally sovereign and all are blessed with equal rights, not all men are willing to honor the rights of others, recognizing no right but greater strength of sinew and bone.

These reasons compel thoughtful men to band together for their common good. While one may be stronger than any other, or even any two together, surely an overwhelming number of others can punish his violation of the laws of nature or his infringement upon their natural rights. While alone a single man may starve or perish from exposure to the elements, a group of men caring for one another will have a better chance of survival and even comfort.

It is for these reasons that men form societies. It is for these reasons that they will agree together upon a means of governing themselves, yielding their personal sovereignty to that of the society. Societies are formed for the mutual benefit of mankind as well as to secure the individuals natural rights from the infringement of those outside those societies. Entering into a society means leaving the state of nature, exchanging it for mutual security, survival, and happiness in the face of a harsh world and the tyranny of those who will not recognize the rights to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness.

The society has no more power over its members than they grant it themselves. For just as a man may freely give up the state of nature to enter into a society with other men, he may freely choose to return to the state of nature forsaking the society of others. In doing so he abandons the protection of that society and returns to the insecurity and peril of a life apart from it. Those who remain in the society though should look upon him with suspicion, as they look upon all who are not a part of their society, for he has chosen to no longer abide by the social compact that binds the society together.

Once a society is formed, certain synergies come into play. Men in a society will recognize that some are more skilled at finding and improving shelters while others have more skill at hunting or acquiring foods. Soon the society will take advantage of the various strengths of its members providing a way to accumulate and set aside more for leaner times, to gain greater comfort and the like.

Again, the nature of man comes into play, for some who are not members of the society might see the society’s gain and covet it for themselves. Unwilling to enter into the society they may seek other means to acquire what the society has accumulated. That accumulation is the property of the members of the society, according to whatever rules they have established for the society. Quite naturally the members of the society are entitled via their individual right to property to defend it. And so a society finds the need for common defense, agreed upon borders and more. It takes, from the authority granted to it by its members sovereign authority over its territory and all within it.

As the founders said in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

This is why men leave the state of nature – to protect their unalienable rights. This is why the founders fought against Britain, for Britain and her King had become destructive of their rights. This is why the United States was established. It is the consent of the governed that grants the United States the authority over its citizens that it has. And it has that authority only so long as it continues to secure the natural rights of its citizens.

We have now seen that although our rights are not granted to us by our government, but are a part of our very nature that they are by nature’s law limited in scope. We have seen why it is that governments are created by men and where they get their powers – and what sovereignty men must give up to join into the society that is ordered and protected by those governments. We have also seen how those who choose to remain in the state of nature, or to leave the society to return to the state of nature set themselves against that society and declare themselves to be foreign to it and forsake its protections and the privileges of its citizens.

What then of my friend who says “That would be fine and dandy if i would have joined, but I was born into the world as is. Why can I not choose to opt out of the governments society?”

I think the answer is quite obvious. If he chooses to opt out, he declares himself to be foreign to that society. If he is foreign to that society he must still abide by its rules and laws while within its jurisdiction. If he fails to do so he declares himself to be at war with the society. When he does that, he had best hope that he has the strength and the fortune to evade the society’s magistrates – for the society’s obligation to protect its members and to secure their safety and happiness demands that it punish the transgression.

More on this (hopefully) later. John Locke deals with the notion of how children are brought into a society by their parents, how it is that their parents are responsible for them and how their rights are less than fully developed while they remain children, for they cannot be sovereigns until they are raised out of a state of nonage into maturity and reason.

You don’t have any constitutional rights

2013-03-14T04:50:51Z

Seriously, you don’t. You might think that you do, but the constitution grants no man any rights. Neither, for that matter, does the Bill of Rights (with one possible exception) nor any of the other seventeen existing and ratified amendments to the constitution.

Article 1 of the constitution deals with the structure, election, and powers of the legislature. Not a single mention is made therein of any rights whatsoever, although a few privileges are recognized and a few privileges are granted. But not a single right is recognized nor granted in article 1.

Article 2 of the constitution deals with the election, powers, duties and responsibilities of the executive. Not a single mention is made therein of any rights whatsoever. Again, not a single right is recognized nor granted in article 2.

Article 3 of the constitution deals with the structure, powers, and limitations upon the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Not a single mention is made therein of any rights whatsoever. Once again, there is not even one right recognized or granted in article 3.

Article 4 of the constitution places certain limitations upon the sovereignty of the states. Not a single mention is made therein of any rights whatsoever, although the citizens of each state are entitled to the same privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several states. This article also makes the only guarantee to be found in the entire constitution. That guarantee is made not to the people, but to the states and it is a guarantee of a republican form of government.

As a side note, Senator John McCain recently said that the founders prohibited the defense of America’s borders. It’s obvious that he never bothered to read article 4 of the constitution. Right after the guarantee of a republican form of government comes this clause.

“and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”

That’s more than mere permission to defend the borders, it’s a mandate to do so. I’ve always thought that John McCain had a poor understanding of his role as a Senator. I’ve long known that he has little regard for the federal governments obligations as well as the explicit limitations placed upon it by the constitution. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he’s simply ignorant, although I’m sure a few of my readers will say it’s not ignorance but arrogance that best characterizes him.

But, back to my main topic…

Article 5 of the constitution defines the process for amending the constitution. Once again, this article makes no mention whatsoever of a single right. Nor does it mention a single privilege, immunity or entitlement, but it does prohibit amendments to the constitution from depriving any state of equal representation in the Senate.

Article 6 of the constitution deals with the validity of the debt accrued by the United States under the articles of confederation. It establishes that the constitution is the highest law of the land. It establishes the supremacy of federal laws enacted in pursuance of the constitution over all other laws. It establishes that treaties made under the authority of the United States, in other words under the authority granted by the constitution, are the supreme law of the land. It requires oaths of all Senators, Representatives, State Legislators, The Executive office, the Judicial officers and all State officers to support the constitution, and it prohibits using religion as a test for holding office. But, it neither recognizes nor grants a single right.

Article 7 of the constitution deals with the ratification procedure and follows up with the correction of a few errata. It is followed by the signatures of many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. But nowhere does it mention a single right, either in recognition or to grant one.

You won’t even find mention of a single right in the preamble to the constitution, except where the preamble notes that one of the purposes of the constitution is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty”. This doesn’t provide a grant of the right to Liberty, but rather it recognizes its existence. That’s right, the only right even recognized in the main body of the constitution is the right to Liberty and that is treated as a pre-existing right.

So what then do people mean when they talk of their “constitutional rights”? Perhaps they mean something to be found in the Bill of Rights. To tell you the truth, if they think that’s where our rights come from, they’re wrong.

The Bill of Rights consists of twelve proposed amendments. Of these the first was never ratified by the states, and the second languished for two hundred and three years before it was finally ratified – as the most recently ratified amendment, the twenty-seventh. Most people are accustomed to thinking of the remaining ten amendments proposed by Congress in that original document as the Bill of Rights. Give the document a good read. You will not find the “granting” of a single right anywhere in it other than the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions (amendment 6). Rather the rights described in the Bill of Rights are discussed as though they already exist and restrictions are placed upon their infringement.

The rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions look to be a special case – they are the only enumerated rights that require the participation of people other than the person enjoying them. It could be argued that these rights were recognized as pre-existing. It’s certain that trial by jury at least had a long history before the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Even so, the wording of the sixth amendment implies a grant of rights in a way that none of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights does:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

That the constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights merely recognizes all other rights rather than granting them is made plain by the ninth amendment. If the constitution or the Bill of Rights were written for the purpose of granting rights then the ninth amendment would be superfluous. In fact it’s very wording would be suspect.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The ninth amendment indicates that the constitution merely enumerates certain rights. It also indicates that the enumeration is incomplete. If that enumeration does not deny other rights retained by the people then there must be other rights that the people already have. The remainder of the amendments (11 through 27) merely place further restrictions upon the governments ability to infringe upon the right to vote, establishing that the right to vote, particularly in federal elections, cannot be infringed base upon race, color, previous condition of servitude, or sex, and establishing that people as young as eighteen cannot be denied the right to vote based upon their age.

All of this begs the question: If the constitution does not grant us our rights, where then do they come from? I think that the answer to that is “self evident”.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

More on that in a follow-up to (hopefully) come soon. I want to discuss natural rights, natural law, and the meaning of the “state of nature” and what it means when we leave the state of nature to enter into a society. At least one person I’ve had a conversation with recently seems to have a major misunderstanding of that topic.

A Capitol Day

2013-03-11T03:08:47Z

Today, Lucas and I went to visit the state capitol. We also took a trip to the Hogel Zoom and a short drive up through Emigration Canyon. Quite naturally, I took my camera. I should have brought my shorter lens though.

It’s almost hard to believe that this building is 99 years old.

Well maybe not. After all, there’s some symbolism there that modern people would likely not even bother with, like the twin lions standing for Integrity and Fortitude. Oh wait, I guess some modern people would, since these were sculpted just four years ago…

But… would we moderns sculpt something like this? This statue of Massassoit was cast in Bronze some 37 years after it’s original was made, but still over half a century ago. Political correctness today might not allow such a thing.

Inside the capitol building is even more impressive than outside. Four alcoves around the central chamber under the cupola caught my eye.

Of course, there’s much more to see, and my pictures don’t do it justice. That, and you aren’t getting the full sized pictures even if you open the links to the larger images. The interior of the capitol is awesome, including the Senate chambers, the House of Representatives chambers, and the old Supreme Court chambers. The Supreme Court now meets in a different building – but… that’s a story and pictures for another day.

Lot’s of stuff to see and do around here. Pictures from the Zoo in a future post.

Antelope Island in Winter

2013-03-03T03:50:04Z

I took my son to Antelope Island today. This is the first time I’ve gone in the winter. We didn’t see too much wildlife but, as always, there was some.

We saw a grand total of seven bison. We also saw a rather small field mouse (not a rodent of unusual size) near the ranch. There we were fortunate enough to encounter a few critters that I hadn’t seen on the island before, including two great horned owls.

Antelope Island is a beautiful place… even in the winter. I know that my son enjoyed it, and so did I.

Why that’s just riveting

2013-02-13T00:59:07Z

I arrived home from work today to see a large cardboard box by my door. Well, O.K. it wasn’t that large but it was heavy at just over 38 pounds. Finally, after over a year of waiting I can begin my next maille project. Opening the box I found… paper. But underneath the paper were 24 plastic bags and an oblong plastic wrapped gizmo. They were coated in machine oil so I took a couple out and set them on my small work tray.

I unwrapped the bag (yes, the bag was still wrapped) and the gizmo. Now I have a rivet set tool a large bag and a small bag.

The small bag contains rivets, the large bag contains overlapped rings of 16 gauge mild steel. And they’re all coated in oil (mild steel does rust after all). I went and grabbed my hauberk (made of 16 gauge stainless steel butted rings with a 5/16” inner diameter) for comparison and pulled out a rivet and a couple of rings.

Here’s the comparison. You might notice that the new rings have a somewhat larger diameter than the stainless rings I used in the hauberk. They’re also not as shiny, and if you click on the image you’ll see they’re coated with gunk. There’s also an area where the ends overlap and have been flattened and a hole punched through. One thing I’ve noted already, the hole is not uniformly positioned. It’s right on the edge of the flattened area in some cases, in others it’s right in the center. In this case, the hole in the two pieces doesn’t quite line up. That will make setting rivets fun (he said with his tongue stuck so hard into his cheek that it’s a wonder anyone understood what he said, including himself).

So now what? Well, obviously we’ve got to set a few rivets and start making chain. But first how about just a ring and its associated rivet?

And the first closed ring with set rivet.

Finally, a single unit of European 4 in 1 riveted maille.

The fun has begun. I have 24,000 rings and rivets to put together to make my next hauberk and coif. I may end up needing more rings. We’ll see as I get closer to project completion. The last one took me 100 hours to build. A good part of that was purely mechanical as I got the hang of opening and closing rings fairly quickly. Setting the rivets and joining the rings into maille seems to take a bit more time (these 5 took me about 15 minutes, but I was taking pictures too), but it has been a couple of years.

Maybe I’ll be done in time for the Renaissance Festival this spring. We’ll just have to see.

Visualizing our national debt

2013-02-06T01:46:30Z

I just hope our government doesn't learn what comes after “trillion.”

You might want to keep this for your records to keep reminding yourself of what our government is doing to the American people and our country. God help us if things don't change very soon.

This graphic is mind-boggling....

One Hundred Dollars

$100 - Most counterfeited money denomination in the world. Keeps the world moving.

Ten Thousand Dollars

$10,000 - Enough for a great vacation or to buy a used car. Approximately one year of work for the average human on earth.

One Million Dollars

$1,000,000 - Not as big of a pile as you thought, huh? Still this is 92 years of work for the average human on earth.

One Hundred Million Dollars

$100,000,000 - Plenty to go around for everyone. Fits nicely on an ISO / Military standard sized pallet.

One Billion Dollars

$1,000,000,000 - You will need some help when robbing the bank. Now we are getting serious!

One Trillion Dollars

$1,000,000,000,000 - When the U.S government speaks about a 1.7 trillion deficit - this is the volume of cash the U.S. Government borrowed in 2010 to run itself.

Keep in mind it is double stacked pallets of $100 million dollars each, full of $100 dollar bills. You are going to need a lot of trucks to freight this around.

If you spent $1 million a day since Jesus was born, you would have not spent $1 trillion by now... but ~$700 billion - same amount the banks got during bailout.

One Trillion Dollars

Comparison of $1,000,000,000,000 dollars to a standard-sized American Football field and European Football field.

Say hello to the Boeing 747-400 transcontinental airliner that's hiding on the right. This was until recently the biggest passenger plane in the world.

15 Trillion Dollars

$15,000,000,000,000 - US national debt (credit bill) has just topped the 15 trillion 2 months before Christmas 2011. Statue of Liberty seems rather worried as United States national debt passes 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the National Debt will exceed 100% of GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS have (bankrupting nations).

$ 114.5 Trillion Dollars

$114,500,000,000,000. - US unfunded liabilities. To the right you can see the pillar of cold hard $100 bills that dwarfs the WTC & Empire State Building - both at one point world's tallest buildings. If you look carefully you can see the Statue of Liberty.

The 114.5 Trillion dollar super-skyscraper is the amount of money the U.S. Government knows it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money USA knows it will not have to pay all its bills

If you live in USA this is also your personal credit card bill; you are responsible along with everyone else to pay this back. The citizens of USA created the U.S. Government to serve them, this is what the U.S. Government has done while “serving The People.”

Unconstitutional

2013-01-27T19:57:27Z

A federal appeals court ruled that several of President Obama’s so-called “recess” appointments were null and void last week. Why? Let’s first look at what a “recess” appointment is…

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.¹

So, the President can "fill up vacancies" during the "Recess of the Senate". Not much to see here right? The President does have this power right? I was asked about this about a year ago when at least one of the appointments in question was made. The Machiavellian said “I just read the Congressional Record and there in black and white, the Senate is in pro forma session.” At the time I wondered, as I do now, just exactly what that meant, and if the distinction was important enough to matter. My conclusion was “I don't like what he's doing, but unless something extraordinary happens it's likely to stand.”

Well, apparently something extraordinary has happened, at least in part. The fight over Richard Cordray isn’t over yet, because that particular appointment wasn’t part of the ruling, but the Federal Appeals Court for the District of Columbia appears to have found their pocket copy of the Constitution.

The court case turned on whether the Senate was in recess when Mr. Obama made the appointments during a holiday break early last year. The Constitution allows a president to unilaterally install nominees to positions that normally require Senate confirmation when the Senate is in recess.

But Republican lawmakers held minutes-long meetings every few days, and lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that meant the chamber was technically in session.

While the plaintiff's case centered on those sessions, the court went a step further, declaring that Mr. Obama's appointments fell outside the bounds of his authority. It ruled that the Constitution's description of a recess refers only to the period between the roughly yearlong formal "sessions" of Congress, rather than during an effective break in proceedings. In this case, the Republicans contend Congress started a new session on Jan. 3, and Mr. Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4.²

We'll probably hear more of this - it will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court after all. The Wall Street Journal's article's penultimate paragraph states...

Friday's ruling conflicts with the executive branch's position since at least 1921, when President Warren G. Harding's attorney general, Harry Daugherty, issued an opinion concluding that the president may make valid recess appointments whenever he determines "there is a real and genuine recess making it impossible for him to receive the advice and consent of the Senate."³

Of course, the attorney general can't actually define a recess. I still have my doubts about whether we’ll win this one and see our Constitution actually upheld. I like the ruling that a recess refers only to the period between the formal sessions of congress. On the other hand, the notion of a “pro forma” session of the Senate bothers me too. After all, Article 1, section 5 has this to say…

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.⁴

It seems to me then, that for the Senate to be "in session" requires a minimum of 51 Senators to be present. Otherwise there isn't the necessary “Quorum to do Business”. If the long-standing tradition of making recess appointments whenever the executive “deems the Senate to be in Recess” stands, surely a Senate that objects can retaliate quite easily. All they need do immediately upon resuming their session is adjourn it again, calling another recess for less than three days. As long as the adjournment is for less than three days, the House of Representatives doesn’t even have to agree to it. If they do this quickly enough, those recess appointments might last a grand total of a single day.

That’s the type of political bickering I’d love to see. Let the Senate and the White House play that game for a while. Eventually the people will become so disgusted with both of them that we’ll see some turnover in the compost heap we call Washington.

¹Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#2.2.3>
²Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional - WSJ.com <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324039504578263772492524536.html>
³ibid.
⁴Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.5.1>

Snow

2013-01-11T01:55:06Z

I missed the last good sized snowstorm we had in Utah. Well, I say “missed”, but maybe not so much. Let’s say rather that I wasn’t here while it was happening, and the snow hadn’t quite melted off this morning. For the entire time I’ve been back, there’s been snow on the ground. And today…

Yesterday ended up reaching the 40s. Snow was melting. This morning it was relatively warm. At lunch time I debated not wearing my jacket…

The snow arrived just in time for my ride home. As I left the building it was snowing… and there was a good dusting on the sidewalks. I have to walk about three good-sized blocks to get to my car. There was almost 1/2 an inch on the ground by the time I finished that walk, my coat was covered in snow, my hair had a mix of melted snow and ice in it and I was cold. Then it took nearly an hour and a quarter to drive the 9 miles to my apartment. My doorstep had snow 5 inches deep.

I love snow. I just hope that it’s a little easier to navigate to and from work tomorrow.

Fix the filibuster?

2013-01-08T05:15:34Z

A long time friend of mine recently shared a link on Facebook from a group demanding that we “Tell the Senate: Fix the filibuster”. The summary text with the link said:

“The filibuster is an antiquated provision in Senate procedure that has given a minority of right-wing senators the ability to paralyze the Senate. Speak out and tell the Senate to fix the filibuster.”

I seem to recall just a few years ago back when the Republican Party held the majority of the Senate (albeit by a thin margin) that the filibuster gave a minority of left-wing senators the ability to paralyze the Senate and block many a judicial and ambassadorial nomination, not to mention block passage of many acts that the majority wanted to pass. Why in 2003 the Junior Senator from the great state of New York said (although I don’t believe she was talking about filibusters, but rather speaking in favor of minority dissent in general)…

“We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”¹

There was talk then among the right-wingers that the Senate needed to fix the filibuster, even a reference to the “nuclear option”, yet nothing was done.Why? Because even then the majority knew that political winds shift and that they might not always be the majority. Now the majority is discussing blocking the ability of the minority to block cloture (again, but it’s a different majority this time, and a big shift for them). In 2005 the Democratic pollster Westhill Partners found only 30% support for changing the rules to allow a simple majority to end a filibuster.²

I’d like to see real filibuster reform myself. Once upon a time the filibuster meant something. If you wanted to block cloture you had to have the floor and keep it. Tales of Senator Byrd’s bladder control are legendary, although even fourteen hours and thirteen minutes wasn't enough to block passage of the Civil Rights act.³ Now all you’ve got to do is find 40 like-minded people that don’t want something to come to the floor for a vote and you can go about your business.

Now, I know that the Senate, and our current President (constitutional scholar though he claims to be) willfully ignore the constitution – especially article 1 section 7 – as well as parts of article 1 section 5 (you know… about when and for how long the House or the Senate may be in recess) and parts of article 2 section 2 (you know… about how the president may fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate), but I’m sure that there is at least one part that the current majority in the Senate will hold dear…

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”⁴

Yes, that’s the second paragraph of article 1 section 5. And you know that the Senate will want to make sure that that part of the constitution at least is honored. (By the way, I’ve heard from the right calls to “impeach Nancy Pelosi” – this is why it can’t be done, even though I’d love to see her out of the House. You can’t impeach a member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate. In theory it should be easier to get rid of one – after all it only takes two thirds of a single house. In reality? It’s not going to happen.)

Well, if they can pass the rules change so be it. It won’t be the first time that Democrats OR Republicans have tried. But the winds will eventually shift again. The Senate ultimately gets to decide how it goes about its own business. If they want to eliminate a long standing Senate rule designed to keep the majority in check and to allow any senator to “speak as long as necessary on any issue”, that’s up to them. Now if we could only get them to remember the rest of the Constitution too.

¹ Hillary Rodham Clinton Quotes <http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/quotes/a/qu_h_clinton.htm>
² Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Nuclear_option_readied>
³ History of Filibusters <http://www.core-online.org/News/filibuster/filibuster3.htm>
⁴ Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.5.2>

Fantasy Genre Speaker Series: Aftermath

2013-01-06T00:30:06Z

Well, I went. The event was free, and yet it was worth many times the price of admission. It was not, as I feared an analysis of The Lord of The Rings like so many people do – looking for hidden meaning in the story and other such nonsense. Instead it was a rather brief introduction to Dramatica Theory, as applied to The Lord of The Rings.

This was the sort of thing I was looking for when I accepted the invitation to the event. It’s the sort of thing I’ve come to expect from the seminars at Norwescon, although there’s a lot more going on there than there was here, but this was free. I would have gladly paid for the privilege of listening to Tracy and Laura Hickman, and for the interaction with other people who were interested in writing.

The session began with an introduction of the speakers, and they continued the introduction. All very nice. Then we got started.

The first topic was Joseph Campbell’s Mono-myth. There was much discussion here about how mythology is the universal language of humanity and that “story is meaning – the why to every question”. A brief exposition of the story cycle in the mono-myth followed, beginning with the “call to adventure”, the “helper”, and crossing the threshold from the world of the everyday into the world of power and adventure. Moving on into tests of the character, more helpers, and the attaining of the prize.

At about this point in the discussion, Tracy made the point that all too often this is where the story ends. The readers or listeners or watchers are then cheated of the real point of the story. He used, as an illustration car chases on the news. Their stories on the news inevitably end with the capture of the miscreant – and the miscreant always has the same look on his face… “huh?”. Television stories and news stories seldom ever deal with the consequences of attaining the goal, and thus we learn nothing from them.

The mono-myth goes through two more stages in its cycle – the flight or return to the normal world and the crossing of that threshold – with the main character always being changed. We’re reminded that you can never go home. When you get there life goes on as it always has for all the people you left behind, but you are forever changed.

There was a lot more, including the discussion of epic story structure – where many stories are woven together into a single story. A discussion of four “journeys”, including the objective journey, the main character’s journey, the impact character’s journey, and the subjective journey of the main character and the impact character. There was a fairly long exercise assigning each of the major characters of the movies to character types for each of these journey-stories too.

Following this, there was a brief question and answer period. Questions ranged from self-publishing, e-books and the digital morass of dreck that so many “authors” produce (I believe the term Tracy used was “electronic slushpile”.). These days it seems anyone with a word processor and an Amazon account can be a published “author”. But that doesn’t make those “published” works worth reading.

Some interesting observations:

An author needs an audience of between 2,000 and 5,000 people to really be successful.
You’ve got to write something worth reading. There’s a lot of really bad “self-published” work out there.
No one will value your work if you don’t. Don’t give your stories away. Always charge something, even if you only require an e-mail address from the people reading your work. An e-mail address by the way is a very valuable thing to acquire – it’s a way of keeping in touch with your readers and getting feedback as well.

All in all, it was a worthwhile session, and I hope to see and attend more of these.

Fantasy Genre Speaker Series: Tracy and Laura Hickman

2013-01-05T04:53:58Z

As you may or may not be aware, I am a fan of fantasy and science fiction novels. I also enjoy going to Norwescon when I have the opportunity. Well, those opportunities may be becoming rare, but the Salt Lake City Public Library is holding an ongoing “Worlds of Fantasy” event. In conjunction with this Tracy Hickman will be speaking tomorrow “as he conducts this character and plot deconstruction of Tolkien’s Middle Earth.”

Having just watched the new hobbit movie, as well as re-watching the extended edition of all of the Lord of the Rings movies again, as well as re-reading the Silmarillion, The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring (no, not quite enough time for The Two Towers and The Return of the King), as well as The Children of Húrin and about a third of Unfinished Tales of of Numenor and Middle-earth, this ought to be an interesting little bit of time.

For more information on this event… go to the Facebook event page.

That all men are created equal? Why does it matter?

2013-01-04T02:29:37Z

The very first of the truths which Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and Benjamin Franklin enumerated in the Declaration of Independence (yes, the words are largely Thomas Jefferson’s and he did the actual draft, but the declaration was a committee work)¹ as being self evident was that “all men are created equal”. My question for today is, “what does this mean, and why is it important?” I begin by answering the second part of the question first.

We often think of the part of the declaration that begins with self evident truths, but the enumeration of these truths came second in the “unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”. The first paragraph of the declaration lays out the reason for the public nature of the declaration:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.²

The argument then begins from first principles. It states plainly what those principles are. These are the self-evident truths that follow.

All men are created equal.
They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights.
Among these rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends (securing the unalienable rights of all men), it is the Right of the People to abolish it.
When the people so abolish a government, it is their right to institute a new government, based on principles and structuring it in a way that they believe will be most likely to ensure their safety and happiness.
It is not prudent to change a government for light and transient causes.
Experience has shown that people are more willing to suffer under a government rather than replace it, while it is possible to do so, because they are accustomed to it.
When a just government is abused and its powers usurped again and again, always toward the same object, so that it obviously appears that the plan is to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is their right and duty to throw off that government and provide a new one for their future security.

After this enumeration of self-evident truths, the declaration goes on to state that the colonies had suffered exactly this long train of abuses, and that they now saw it as necessary to exercise their right and fulfill their duty to separate themselves from the government they lived under at the time. The rest of the declaration makes the case that the British government had become destructive of the ends of securing the rights of all men and was working unjustly against the colonies to reduce them under tyranny.

This, more than anything else is the foundation of the United States of America. All that followed stands upon it. Shortly after the Declaration was penned, signed, and distributed a union of thirteen independent nations was formed under the Articles of Confederation. That confederation proved to be too weak, as James Madison saw it. A proposal by Madison and John Tyler regarding the regulation of commerce in the confederation resulted in a convention of delegates from all the states “for the purposes of revising the Articles of Confederation”. This ultimately became the constitutional convention where our constitution was drafted not as a revision of the Articles of Confederation, but as a replacement.³ (This by the way is why I am leery of any proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. We might end up with something entirely different than we expected.)

In any case, the Constitution is a form of government drawn up to secure the safety and happiness of the people of the United States (see self evident truth number 7 above). Many people talk of their rights as “Constitutional rights”. This is a misnomer. The Constitution does not grant us any rights – it only exists to recognize pre-existing rights and to secure them. This should be made clear by the 9th amendment:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.⁴

The Constitution of the United States owes its existence, not merely to the Constitutional Convention and its ratification by the states. It could not have come into being without the self evident truths of the Declaration of Independence, and if ever it is twisted so that it becomes destructive of the ends of securing our pre-existing unalienable rights it will become our duty to replace it.

This is what makes the question of the meaning of the phrase “all men are created equal” so important. I’ll address the actual meaning of the statement in a future post. For now though let me make one thing it does NOT mean very clear – all men are NOT entitled to equal outcomes.

¹ Declaration of Independence - A History, 1/3/2012, <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html#committee>
² Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript, 1/3/2012, <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html>
³ Constitution of the United States - A History, 1/3/2012, <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html>
⁴ Bill of Rights Transcript Text, 1/3/2012, <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html#9>

Some site maintenance

2013-01-02T08:31:14Z

I’ve been doing a bit of overdue site maintenance this evening. My picture gallery has somehow become corrupted, so I’ve spent the last couple of hours backing up the files that weren’t on CD at the house, un-installing it, and re-installing it.

My website is fairly old. I wrote the code for this site some six and a half years ago on ASP.NET 1.0. It’s due for an upgrade fairly soon, and I’ve been working on new web software using ASP.NET 4.0. My hosting provider supports ASP.NET 4.0 now, so It’s probably time for at least an upgrade of the web site software – that will probably happen over the next month or so.

The blog won’t be going away, and I plan to (resolve in 2013 to) start posting regularly and considerably more often again. I know one or two people that will like that – assuming I manage to stick to the plan (hey, I kept my 2012 resolution after all).

Suggestions for topics are welcome – add them to the comments here. If there are things you think don’t work, let me know. My initial plans are subject to change, but a few items are in the works. First of all, I’m going to drop the political content. I’m not really that interested in the ephemeral politics of the day. The philosophical content on natural rights vs. the rights of man will remain. I plan to write in more detail about our founding documents and what they actually say – and how that applies to our rights and responsibilities as citizens. Expect more references in the content as well, such as the table of footnotes for this post.

The software upgrade for the site will probably take place sometime this summer. Some of the older content will be archived away in the next month or so. New content has already begun to appear.

The American people are lazy, apathetic, morons

2013-01-02T04:06:32Z

A friend of my son says that no one reads the Constitution anymore. I responded to him that I read it, and that after all it is the supreme law of the land. His response? “A law that has no one follows or enforces isn't a law, it's just advice”.

This is really the problem that our nation faces. If we don't even bother to read our founding documents and understand them we're nothing but slaves to a government that is totally out of our control. Our government was intended to be under the People's control, not the other way around. Our collective apathy is why our government runs roughshod over our rights.

What a lazy, apathetic, and foolish people we've become.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Aren’t we getting close yet? Our Senators disdain the voice of the people – we get in the way of their (the Senators) business whenever we call to express our opposition to unconstitutional or unwise measures (Surely we remember the words of John McCain a few years ago…). Our supreme court ignores our unalienable right to Liberty as well as the Constitution, upholding a mandate of the federal government that we MUST purchase a product whether we would or not – calling it a tax – and ignoring section 7 of article 1 – Obamacare after all is still not constitutional, even if it is just another tax – the bill originated in the Senate, in violation of the constitution. We “avoid” the fiscal cliff by raising taxes on “the rich” – in violation of the same clause in the constitution. Our President ignores the constitution and makes recess appointments – while the Senate is not even in recess.

There is no branch of the federal government that honors the constitution (a former Speaker of the House declares that questions of constitutionality are ridiculous). If they won’t honor it and we won’t read it then we are no longer a nation of laws, but merely a nation of men. All hail our masters – the federal government. We have become slaves after all. Has this long train of abuses not gone on long enough?

Thanks to our own stupidity and apathy. I for one don’t wish to be a slave. Surely we can take back our nation – or are we still disposed to suffer rather than right the ship?

U.S. Constitution officially meaningless

2013-01-01T06:26:36Z

I guess the U.S. Constitution is officially meaningless to our President and Senate, as well as the news media. I specifically refer to Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 1 of the constitution which reads as follows. "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

I note this after reading the following article: White House, Senate GOP reach cliff deal

The White House and Senate Republicans reached an agreement late Monday to avert the imminent fiscal cliff of wide-reaching tax hikes and deep spending cuts, with the plan now facing votes as the new year dawns.

The agreement would raise taxes on wealthy Americans, extend unemployment benefits, and delay across-the-board spending cuts — but would let a 2% payroll-tax cut lapse and do nothing to address the U.S. borrowing limit.

The tax-and-spending package must now clear both chambers of Congress, with a Senate vote possible as early as Monday night.

Since when does the Senate have the authority to originate a bill for raising taxes? I guess it really is time to buy guns, because our President and our Senate blatantly disregard the plain text of the Constitution while the news media celebrates the “avoidance” of the fiscal cliff. Perhaps armed revolution really is our only alternative.