My Blog List

Friday, April 20, 2018

Justice, Injustice And "Legal Fictions" = Fraud

Professor David Ellerman wrote some things that really, really impressed me and I want to summarize some of what he's saying that is relative to me. Starting with the Following Table, which expresses the truth table of what constitutes justice and injustice:

http://www.ellerman.org/the-case-against-the-employment-system-based-on-the-norms-of-ordinary-jurisprudence/

The Law is only just when the person who is held responsible is actually in fact responsible. That ought to be tautological, but in our corrupted times, both type one and type two injustice are common, sometimes due to failures in the discovery process for seeking the truth, but also because modern governments employ oppressive and/or Fruadulent legal theories. David explains the table as:

“analogous to Type I and Type II error in statistics”

Those advocating Inequality claimed it was Consensual

And notes that:

"Historically, the sophisticated arguments for slavery and autocratic government were consent-based in terms of implicit or explicit contracts. And the legalized oppression of married women was based on the coverture marriage contract."

Modern Liberalism fought:

“sophisticated arguments for slavery and for non-democratic forms of government based on consent. The advances in anti-slavery arguments and democratic arguments based on the inalienable rights arguments of the Reformation and Enlightenment were made against those liberal defenses of slavery and autocracy based on consent.”

Historians misrepresent the difficulty of advancing rights for all people when they downplay this.

Inalienable Rights Versus Oppressive Consent

David explains that:

“the critiques developed in the abolitionist, democratic, and feminist movements were not simply arguments for consent as opposed to coercion, but arguments against certain voluntary contracts, e.g., in the form of inalienable rights arguments.”

These inalienable rights arguments focused on the fact that labor cannot be divorced from either personhood or capital. The abolitionists argued successfully that labor cannot be alienated from personhood but is inseparable from it. Thus Alienating a persons labor from his personhood degrades the person and is oppression, infringing on the very basic rights of the persons enslaved. Moreover, this is true even if the person agreed to the sale.

Legal Fiction of Consent = Fraud

Unfortunately:

“under the intellectual hegemony of classical liberalism, the historical arguments tend to be simplified”

The doctrine of the inalienability of a person and his labor was replaced with the “legal fiction” of selling (or renting) labor, replacing the rights argument with the patently fraudulent argument that a voluntary sale of a persons labor to the master, is a voluntary "sale" with "consent. Reducing the rights argument to an argument about:

“consent versus coercion.”

This argument, being slippery justifies alienating labor from capital and labor from personhood. Just so long as a contract exist and the infringing party ("the employer") has a contract that presumably is voluntary. The result is that:

“The older arguments against certain contracts, even if perfectly voluntary, have been largely overlooked, ignored, or lost—perhaps for an obvious reason. When these older arguments are recovered and restated in terms of the underlying norms of ordinary jurisprudence, then the arguments clearly apply against the human rental or employment contract that is the basis for our present economic system.”

Historical Illustration

The history of abolition and post abolition forms of wage slavery, company store oppression, share-cropping and virtual slavery of wage laborers illustrates that the "legal fiction" of renting labor is a fraud.

Critiquing Marxism

He also explains how Marxism contributed to the demise of labor by ignoring this rights case and thus setting it up so that later Marxists gave workers a choice between being wage slaves to private persons or wage slaves to the Government. Which is no choice at all.

Marx disparaged natural rights theory, lumped pretty much all wealth into "capital", didn't differentiate between natures bounty (land) from capital or see the link between man's labor and his property. If a person has a right to property in the product of his labor, he has a right to capital even when someone else owns the property he is working within. When a right is inalienable, that means it cannot be separated from who a person is. Alienating labor from capital is destructive to both the function of the workplace and health and well being of workers. That is why Henry George referred to Marx as "muddle headed." (and Marx reciprocated).

By denying the rights argument, socialists ended up stripping the rationale for forcing employers to treat workers as part of the enterprise they all were mutually involved in.

There is a lot more to this argument. I think I'll put it in a different post and link it to this one. But in essence it converges with Post-Georgist arguments about the importance of taxing rent and protecting labor and actual capital ("working capital").

Further Reading

To Read Professor David Ellerman's draft paper:

http://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/case-based-on-ordinary-norms.pdf
https://cosmosandtaxis.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ellerman_ct_vol5_iss3_4.pdf
Neoabolitionism: http://www.ellerman.org/neo-abolitionism-and-marxism/

Thursday, April 5, 2018

The Second Amendment is an Auxiliary and Subordinate Right

Implementing the Second Amendment

I take the constitution seriously, and the second amendment, But the second amendment makes no sense without the context of, and reference to, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Second amendment really refers to a requirement of good Government, that we preserve the “Security” of our “Free State,”

National security requires State Security which requires local security. If people don't feel secure in their persons and possessions, the country isn't secure. If some people are secure (Oligarchy), the majority are less secure. The "Right to Bear Arms" is auxiliary, but necessary to, the right to participate in governing ourselves. Samuel Adams referred to the Right to “have and use arms” as Auxiliary and Subordinate to the rights to personal security, liberty and property. In ancient times the greatest power of common people was that the Government had to ask them to fight for them.

Friday, March 30, 2018

How the Militia Of the Whole Concept failed in the 19th Century

How Militia of the Whole Failed

The Militia of the Whole

I began exploring the meaning of Militia and the Second Amendment back in 2015, after questions about the Heller Decision. This post forms a whole when combined with previous ones and is a follow on to Selective Service Versus Standing Armies". In earlier posts I've written my opinion of;

  1. Why DC Versus Heller was Badly Decided,
  2. On Militia and the Founders
  3. Select Militia National Guard and Second Amendment

I wrote all of this before reading "Armed in America" (though I edited the two recent ones based on it's first chapter) which helped me understand the segue between the understanding of the Second Amendment that the founders had and the modern understanding. The reason we have such a muddy understanding of the second amendment today are threefold:

  • The project of drafting the entire population into Militia, failed, (as Predicted by Hamilton).
  • The risks of a "Select Militia" and a "Standing Army", were realized in much of the country.
  • There was a nearly 100 year project, led by Arms manufacturers and organizations like the NRA, to reinterpret the Second Amendment.

Monday, March 19, 2018

SS Mansfield And My Father

My Dad, Hartley Oliver Holte, Served on the USS Mansfield in the mid 50s. He told me he participated in Occupation Hardtack in 1958. There were a series of Nuclear tests during Operation Hardtack. He recounts that sailors took photos and it was his job to collect the pictures. His Ship was too close to one blast, he told me. I believe he also served in the defense of the Taiwan Strait in 1959. In 1960 he was transferred to Sandia Labs in Alburquerque. He chose to leave the service in 1962 rather than go back to sea.

More Info:
http://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/2-Hist_Rpt_Atm/1958_DNA_6038F.pdf
http://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/2-Hist_Rpt_Atm/1958_DNA_6038F.pdf
https://www.revealnews.org/article/us-veterans-in-secretive-nuclear-tests-still-fighting-for-recognition/
For some Reason he's not listed at this site:
http://www.ussmansfield.com/nfbomb/
http://kman.my.meganet.net/nfbomb.htm

Why Burn it Down?

Years ago, they ran an experiment where they turned a lab chamber into a large maze and let rats run free within. They fed the rats & cleaned, took care of basic needs but little else. Rats did what rats do and soon the place was crawling with them. It started to look like Hells Kitchen. With bully rats, gang rats & little gang wars. The rats, when autopsied, had swollen adrenal glands & other signs of great stress. To the social scientists this was disturbing. Though to the rest of us it now seems like they were playing "obvious man."

This post is a follow on to Turning "Our Revolution" into Piqueteros which refers to the authoritarian impulse in both the far left and far right. I'm trying to make sense of why people would want to burn down our system. I hope this helps.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Turning "Our Revolution" into Piqueteros

The Lost Patrol of Piqueteros/"burn it down" activists

The Far left wing in much of the world is into violent revolution, "burn it down", "destroy the establishment," and replace the current system. That is similar to the goal of the Far Right. But in the hands of corrupt leadership, compromised leaders or leaders who won't work well with each other, the people who engage in such "revolution" become one or all the following:

  • Useful Idiots, people who cancel the efforts of each other and give dictators and corrupt organizations by canceling their own efforts.
  • Controlled opposition,, who will go after a dictators enemies as proxies for them. Sometimes instigated by trolls, agent provocateurs, corrupting agents, or traitors. Sometimes good people behave badly due to blackmail or bribes.
  • Unsound followers of authoritarian ideology,; who follow sociopathic or narcissistic leaders and have a deluded ideology that cannot ever work out as dreamed of by those followers. The Far Right has morphed into such a totalitarian movement led by a nascent dictator. A similar tendancy exists in the far left. Whenever people follow leaders blindly, they fall into the authoritarian trap.

Wise people hold principles that include working for the common good, trading lesser goals for greater objectives and recognizing the importance of thresholds and mutual equity. Sometimes to achieve a threshold capability one has to be willing to trade off ideals. People who can't adjust to reality are idealists (by definition). Such people usually let "the perfect be the enemy of the good" and are easily manipulated by trolls, agent provocateurs or demagogues.

Friday, March 16, 2018

Selective Service Versus Standing Armies

We are Facing Standing Armies

This post follows: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2018/03/select-militia-national-guard-and.html

More about what Standing Armies

A Standing army:

“....unlike a reserve army, is a permanent, often professional, army. It is composed of full-time soldiers (who may be either career soldiers or conscripts) and is not disbanded during times of peace. It differs from army reserves, who are enrolled for the long term, but activated only during wars or natural disasters, and temporary armies, which are raised from the civilian population only during a war or threat of war and disbanded once the war or threat is over. The term dates from approximately 1600, although the phenomenon it describes is much older.” [quote from Wikipedia but also in my other sources]

But here is the thing, standing armies used to also serve as police, "peace keepers", enforcers, and often lived off the land as land pirates when governments were tyrannical or occupying hostile territory.

.... which means that modern armed forces; police, security guards (private armies), and similar; also are standing armies, because they are permanent, professional and sometimes they act like occupying forces when they operate in (or as if in) occupied territory.