LOGICAL MINDS ONLY

Racism is just another failed trope of liberalism. The arguments they make for it are so extreme they stopped making sense and in fact are inconsistent. As usual liberals are so intent on painting the darkest picture possible they forgot to make it believable.

If murder is unjust, we cannot be free to murder. If we have the freedom to live off of the charity of others freeloading cannot be considered unjust. If free speech is a freedom but aspects of free speech are considered unjustified then we do not have a clear understanding of either freedom or justice. This essay seeks to clarify what freedom is, what justice is and why at their roots they are not reconcilable concepts.

Freedom is not free. Liberals have turned the word into another meaningless trope. The liberal idea of freedom is used as a way to describe freedom from the need to work; the freedom to freeload.

The law is a product of the state. Law is manifested power founded on the two principles of power, might makes right and the end justifies the means. There is nothing just or righteous about the law. Following the law does not save us nor make us moral. The legalist is not a moral person and is often tiresome at best and despotic at worst. If we are said to be demon-possessed when we lose control of our physical self, what condition are we in, socially, when we lose control of our communities?

We all know right from wrong and yet no one can say why they know this or where the knowledge comes from in a way that could be verified. We claim to know what is just but we cannot prove what is just, so how valid is the claim? Justice Described puts our sense of justice on an objective foundation. Justice is described in a way that can be quantified and scientifically validated.

Liberals have a long history of supporting freedom and democracy. There is not as much evidence of them defending justice. From the MeToo Movements assertion that due process was not an appropriate response to woman’s claims to abuse events, to the barbarism of Cancel Culture and the wholesale enabling of BLM, justice for liberals has always been too closely allied with political agendas to be taken seriously.

The world has a division. Different people attempt to draw the line in various ways and places, the Bible divides the world into those who believe in God and those who do not. Atheist attempt to convince us this line means atheists are on one side and all believers in something more than reality are on the other. This is a bizarre and ultimately fruitless attempt to draw a line where it cannot exist. On one side are people of the law and on the other are the people of faith. Those who believe in the law live by legal systems and works. Because of this ownership is based on power whereas for Christians ownership is based on authorship. In this essay it is demonstrated there are two ways of interpreting reality and only two and the line divides the world into those who think the world operates by law and those who believe it operates by faith.

Ownership is based on authorship. It is the ones who create wealth that have the right to dispense and allocate wealth. The person who produces equity has the only valid claim to that equity. No one else has a claim to what is created other than the being who created it. In other words, all claims to things of value are fictitious and unfounded and cannot be reasonably validated, other than the claim made by the one who originated the thing of value. Therefore, owners have a right to justice and this justice must in all times and places validate the claim by the owner to the wealth he or she produced. All actions of claim by any other than the author of the wealth is an injustice, all such external claims must be justice, be impugned and discarded.

Justice is incompatible with liberty. Justice applied cannot do anything other than reject liberty. Freedom requires someone pay the cost. Paying the cost of freedom gives us justice only if we obtain the freedom that we fought for. Those who fight for freedom and do not reap the rewards they fought for do not receive justice. This happens only because we are not permitted to fight for justice. If justice was the ideal fought for, we would have justice, we would have what we fought for. The fight for freedom permits justice to be withheld. Freedom is a pie someone else baked.

Can evil be quantified? Can we measure the impact of evil on individuals and society in a way that would make it an entry in a ledger? Evil is a concept mostly associated with Christian Theology. As such it is assumed to be at best a meaningless term, so subjective as to be useless in the scientific sense of the word. It is true, evil is a metaphysical term but honesty is a close parallel and we seem not to have much trouble measuring this, at least in banks. So, lets take another look at what evil is, remembering, what is more metaphysical than quantification and accounting?

The Golden Rule is the only rule we need. The Golden Rule has the ability to replace all human law and in fact law exists only as a failed attempt by man to make The Golden Rule redundant. The left hates The Golden Rule because applied it creates a Church that forms a community. For a Christian there is nothing outside of the church when the church operates according to The Golden Rule.

The left includes socialists and communist elements. Both infringe upon people's private property rights. The politics of the left are based in a particular morality that views private property as inherently evil. They do not always voice this in an articulate way, however, the politics of the left requires them to see the right as the problem and private property as inherently problematical. Ultimately, they cannot permit property rights because at the deepest level property rights conflicts with their moral agenda and their very legitimacy. If the left learned to respect private property they would realize the lefts claim they or the state has a right to infringe upon or nullify property ownership has no moral legitimacy.

This is not a misprint nor a contradiction. Capitalism is an institution normally considered on the right but in fact it cannot exist without the intervention of the state. Any organization, institution or ideology that produces social costs is of necessity a left-leaning operation and deserves to be pigeon-holed on the left. Any movement to produce a more conservative nation must think twice about trying to build on the foundation of capitalism. The elimination of socialism requires the elimination of capitalism and only a business model based on a free market that works without the existence of the state can do this. The alternative economic model is discussed as an Exchange. Based on the Labor Theory of Value and producing a true free market, Exchanges eliminate all social costs or what is called freeloading or what economists refer to as externalized costs.

Sovereign Community is a free-standing community or any size that permits any group from 3 persons up to separate from those whom they do not wish to associate with. Sovereign communities are resilient and stable. The administration acts as a brokerage. Sovereign communities promote an economy based on high value labor. Ownership is based on authorship, there is no freeloading or parasitism, there is zero unemployment, no inflation, pollution, taxation or debt.  Sovereign businesses do not go bankrupt. Unused or underused assets are reassigned to higher value areas.

A discussion arguing that by virtue of the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents it is technically impossible for the people to engage in insurrection especially and particularly in what is termed a Populist Insurrection.

The reality of atheists is synthetic. Atheists believe everything they observe can be related to something real in nature. Atheists believe their observations represent something that is inherently and objectively real. But they cannot prove this. Empiricism specifically excludes the possibility of proving the existence of an objectively real universe. Logic does not work the way atheists think. Logic is analytical. Atheists do not subscribe to analytical logic. Analytical logic defines truth by how coherent our concepts are. Logic proves itself. Logic validates its own premises and axioms.  Analytical logic leads to God. Analytical logic proves the premises of Christianity and atheists do not want to go there.

Democracy is a failed paradigm. Politicians are just another form of freeloader. Democracy needs replacing with an ethical system that does not permit freeloading or encourage the adoption of a victim mentality. We need an ethical alternative, a system in which those who create costs pay the costs they create. If you are tired of freeloaders whether they be businesses, politicians, criminals or unruly elements support the ethical alternative to democracy. If we are not prepared to eradicate liberalisms ideologically, we will never have peace. There has to be accountability and socialism is all about freeloading aided and abetted by democracy.

It is too easy to explain away socialism by claims the left suffers from a mental disability. Its too easy because it allows and even encourages the left to explain away conservatism using the same argument. The right requires a more substantial argument than conservative responses have been to date. Telling people they are mentally disabled because they disagree with our point of view, is not a good way to convince them to convert – do we want to recruit mentally disabled people to the right?

Accountability is not a subjective exercise. To be accountable we need an accounting, that is a record of costs created. Christians require accurate accounting if we are to be accountable. God designed the church to enable Christians to be accountable to one another. If this is not possible in the terms an accountant would use your church is not designed in the way God described.

Democracy gives power to the majority but the majority may not have the interests of their society in mind when they assign politicians to represent them. A majority of poor persons on the left will be interested in obtaining as much support from a rich minority. This may not be the best course of action but because no one on the left is directly expected to pay the costs of their decision, the course of action seems reasonable to them.