The Existence of Great Evil

After this?  Keep Reading.  Send me questions.  Use the comment feature.  Whatever.

I've been asking around about "great evil" - because I think a "Central Bank" is one, and I suspect any institution that uses a majority vote to force the minority into covering the cost of what that minority feels is unethical is also a GREAT evil.  Obviously, forcing someone to pay for what they believe is unethical is evil itself, but it isn't great - I think - because we can individually fight against it.  But when democracy is used to magnify the injustice of such an arrangement, it becomes a great evil.  In my mind, it explains why "Blowback" has proven to be such a problem for America, why we had a financial crisis in the first place, and why we're heading for a double-dip recession.

Many of the people who talk to me remark that my input is very helpful.  I seem to have a knack for identifying the crucial differences when people disagree, and I can represent each side in a manner that shows both sides that the other side isn't unreasonable, but just starts from a few different axioms.  I often have to tiptoe around the axioms because when they are starkly described, they are shameful.  And really, the people who start from an axiom like "People are generally stupid," will gradually back away from it, and also from their opposing positions, as I lead them to see that the shameful axiom is partly to blame for their position.

Since you're here, I have to assume that you mostly will agree with me, which suggests that staying here to read more won't help you much - that it's just confirming what you already understand.  But represent your toughest opponents to me.  Ask me what I might look for to convince them.

Here's an example where I may have at least weakened my friend Scott's conviction that a stronger central government is better:

Scott Smith -

Ahhh, there is a difference. You see yourself as a victim of society, wherein I see myself as a participant IN society.


    The fact is, there is always a need for balance. Society and a democratically run government is in constant flux to keep balance. They are (we are) ever adjusting and never stagnant. The greatest destroyer of our system of government and way of life will be when we no longer go to the polls.

Dave Scotese -

What distinction is there in your mind between our system of government and our way of life? What distinction is there in your mind between society and government? I certainly see myself (and most everyone else) as a victim of government, but I see myself as a beneficiary of society. So I'm not sure where you got the impression that I see myself as a victim of society. The distinction for me is choice. One provides me with opportunity, and the other takes opportunity away. One expands the choices I have, and the other eliminates some of my choices.

    In the adjustments and constant flux you mentioned, what are the two poles between which balance is being kept?

Scott Smith -

Transpose society for government if it makes better sense to you. Indeed, both are different and separate, but I participate and strengthen government, wherein you choose to see yourself as a victim.

    Always question authority is a motto I truly believe and live by, but to think myself a victim is to equate my life with that which my mother lived (under a totalitarian regime)...
    ...we are not that world.

Dave Scotese -

- How are they different and separate? Why is it government that you wrote that you participate in and strengthen, rather than society? What are the two poles between which balance is kept?

    Isn't there a gradual movement between one extreme, being the totalitarian world in which your mom lived, and the other extreme? How would you characterize that other extreme? If we are moving in the right direction, would we ever be able to move in that direction faster by ending or shrinking certain institutions, or does the existence of an institution of any sort indicate progress in the right direction?

    Aren't we all victims in some way? I know it's usually not too useful to see things that way, but how can we know when it is useful?

Scott Smith -

Great wordplay and trickery...

    ....of course, government and society are different, especially in the USA. We, as a society that is of us, by us and for us. At least that is what we continually strive to keep. I am for a strong central government as a representation of what I desire for society and self, and am ever skeptical at a power structure that tries to deny anyone a fair shake at life. Today's power structure is the corporation(s) that are overly dominant on our government. To rid that we must speak out and fight for our government to speak for us and not them.

    If we go the route you prefer, you are allowing free reign by those very corporations trying to takeover now, but without the buffer of a government with which we can block them through.

    Once again, I am not, nor will ever be, a victim. Your words and your choice (which is exactly what you prefer).

Dave Scotese -

"Today's power structure is the corporation(s) that are overly dominant on our government."

    That's it exactly. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

    Victimhood isn't really important here, right? What's important is that we recognize the ways in which power can transfer from those who are not "overly dominant" to those who are. I heard that Judo tends to use the power of one's enemy against that enemy. In this case, it seems that is what happens as we work to strengthen the government to reduce the overly dominant position - it backfires. Stigler's theory seems to back up that impression, and that is why I thought the idea of a strong central government should be challenged.

Scott Smith -

And it is backfiring, for those that are trying to control government want nothing more than to have government get out of it's way. A lesser impediment to controlling society are those believing that small government is better for all.

Welfare vs Charity

Michael E, thank you for posting.  I'd like to drive your point even further:

Let's pretend we know someone is in need.  I mean, everyone reading this knows there's this, say, family, that is in need.  We have two ideas on the table about how to help them:

1) Let's agree to have everyone put $100 in a fund.  We'll have an election to see who will collect the money and deliver it to the family.  We'll provide that person with a few percent of the fund in return for making sure everyone contributed.  If anyone refuses, either we'll get their employer (or whoever owes them money) to put it in the fund before paying them, or else lock them in a cage for a while.  Maybe both.

2) Let's each provide whatever we feel like providing, directly, to the family.

Many people very strongly believe that the family will benefit more if we use the first idea, which is the one our government has implemented.  Whether or not it's an ethical plan is something they haven't considered (isn't it obviously unethical?) because the amount isn't $100.  It's more like 30 cents or maybe three cents.

But let's pretend for a moment that there isn't anything immoral about it.  Pretend you're a member of the family in need. 

Do you have dignity?  Do you have honor and integrity?  What is your response to the elected official bringing you money to help you out?  A fund, you have to remember, that you were forced to contribute to when you weren't needy enough.  Are you grateful?  Or would "expectant", "entitled", or "demanding" be more accurate?  Perhaps you are grateful. 

Now suppose that we used idea #2 instead, and you didn't get enough money, because people just aren't generous enough.  Are you more "demanding/expectant/entitled", or more grateful?  Let's suppose that you are more demanding simply because your needs haven't been met.  You sarcastically say "Gee, Thanks A LOT!" to the people who give you quarters and pennies.  But because of that need, wouldn't you be pretty motivated to find and engage in useful work to earn what you need? 

Now let's switch back to idea #1, where you do get enough, and it comes from an official fund.  How motivated are you in that case?

You can argue that you would be just as grateful and kind with #1 as with #2.  You can also argue that you'd be just as motivated with #1 as with #2.  If that's true, then you're an angel.  I know that I'm a pretty good person, but not that good, and I can't believe that anywhere close to half the people in need are that good either. 

Welfare damages motivation, which makes it impractical.  It also requires what most would consider stealing or kidnapping.  It's an immoral and impractical solution to the problem of poverty.

Facebook: "The message could not be posted to this Wall."

Solution for Facebook wall posting problem.  I was trying to post to my own wall and FB gave me this error: "The message could not be posted to this Wall."

If you get this error, you might want to log out and log back in.  This seems to have fixed the problem for me at least once.

I tried updating my status and got a message that said something like it couldn't be done at this time - try again later.

Bad Internet Citizens

Just about everyone on the Internet has suffered because of bad Internet citizens.  They drop spam in our forums.  They drop it in our email boxes.  They create elaborate methods of copying code to thousands of machines and then use it to attack a business and extort money from it, raising the costs of everything.  What's sad is that the best of them could be writing video games or logistics algorithms or advertising copy.  They could be useful, but instead, they are attracted, like flies to poop, to the freedom the Internet gives them, and our failure to cooperate in an effort to frustrate their depravity.

My proposition is this: Website owners should have a place to register bad IP addresses.   Such a centralized database will provide a method of tracking the decisions of the individuals who are misbehaving, but it provides a valuable resource to everyone with a website.  While spam in forums and email is bothersome and wastes a lot of time, Denial of Service attacks cause much more concentrated damage.  Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attacks are much much worse.

Many DDOS attacks are executed on botnets, which consist of computers belonging to naive Internet users.  These users have executed some "unsafe" code which installed "malware" on their computer.  It doesn't do much harm to them, but en masse, it can be directed to wreak havoc on a website business until the owners pay a ransom.  But here comes the catch...

Those users undoubtedly sometimes use other websites that also suffer from DDOS attacks from time to time, and those sites would also benefit from educating the naive owners about the compromise of their systems.  Armed with the fact that several "other victims" have reported their IP address as that of a compromised system, some will choose to deny access for a time, or perhaps until the naive owner submits a log of the output from a cleaning program like Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware.  Others will simply offer the info.

But none will be able to use the system until someone compiles a database of IP addresses used in a DDOS attack, and then puts in the effort to keep it up to date.  That's me.  Can you help?

Weiner vs Libya

What should be done is that anyone talking about Weiner should be directed to information about Obama's violation of the War Powers Act in Libya, and furthermore, the War Power's Act's own violation of the Constitution. Or perhaps the Paul Ryan "VoucherCare" proposal that someone claimed is another possible media story that is getting crowded out by Weiner.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/20/lawmakers-demand-explanation-white-house-libya-deadline-arrives/

Don't you think this story is crowding out much more important news?

Dear Rep. Mary Bono Mack

Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding one of the recent congressional bills. I value your opinions on this and all other legislative matters and appreciate your efforts to keep your constituents informed.

As you may know, the boilerplate letter you send out in response to email inquiries does not include the recipient's original email.  As a result, I have no idea what email you're responding to and can't really put the information you've provided to use.  If you could please begin including the original email in your response, or at least the subject line or a brief summary, your effectiveness as a representative would be greatly enhanced.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me on critical legislation. Rest assured I will keep pestering you whenever your representation seems lacking.  For example, you placed security at a higher level of importance than adherence to the Constitution when you voted for H.R. 514.  You may have heard of Ben Franklin, who said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  As you'll see in the coming months, this was a mistake you may soon regret.  Your regret will stem not from any kind of violence (which we abhor), but rather from the PR headache of dealing with persistent supporters of the constitution who demand that you do your job of protecting their freedom, as opposed to keeping them secure by passing laws that violate the Bill of Rights.

For your convenience, you can sign up to receive regular email updates from me at litmocracy.blogspot.com. Please feel free to contact me on other matters of mutual concern.

Open letter to the IRS

Thanks to Dave Zuniga, I have started down the long road of understanding the tax code.  I will be relying on answers from the IRS to my questions as I go about determining what "the tax imposed upon... a head of a household, [or] a married individual filing a separate return," as described at the beginning of Title 26.  This is because I am afraid that despite the horror of the situation in which it has placed us, powerful agents of the federal government continue working to enforce it.  My first request was for a link to or the text of "subsection Sec. 1(b)" or of "subsection Sec. 1(d)" of section 1, as indicated in Title 26, § 1.1-1   Income tax on individuals, (a)(2)(i):

Hi IRS Folks,

I have a few questions, as I am attempting to establish what tax is imposed upon me, given that I have a choice whether to file as a Head of household, a married couple filing jointly, or a married individual filing a separate return, or, presumably, not filing a return at all:

1. Are the contents of "subsection Sec. 1(b)" or of "subsection Sec. 1(d)" of section 1, as indicated in Title 26, § 1.1-1   Income tax on individuals, (a)(2)(i) available anywhere on the Internet?  If not, I will need that information in order to determine and pay any income tax I owe.
2. One of the options on the 1040 is "Married filing jointly", but Title 26, § 1.1-1   Income tax on individuals, (a)(2)(i) does not mention where the imposition can be determined, that is, none of the rows in the table there indicates which subsection of section 1 contains the "appropriate table" for a married individual filing jointly.
3. If I must file a return, please send me the list of possible IRS forms and the text of the law that imposes the requirement on me.  There are 2 occurrences of "file" near "shall" near "1040" in the e-CFR data as of May 5th, and neither of them asserts that anyone shall file the form.  I tried the word "must" as well, and got three more hits, but they all apply to "Coordination of United States and Virgin Islands income taxes."

Without this information, I will unable to determine or pay any income tax I owe.

I do have another question which only affects my personal moral Scylla and Charybdis, which may or may not be more important to you than upholding the requirements of your job:

1. Is there any recourse for a victim of the imposition of the income tax to avoid supporting immoral government programs without imposing on his or her fellow countrymen the added tax burden of supporting another prisoner convicted of not paying taxes?  For example, does the IRS prosecute War Resistors despite the gross immorality of doing so?

Thanks!

After doing some more research, I have determined that any information from the IRS may not be useful anyway.  It appears that we need a new justice system.  However, asking the questions might help existing IRS personnel to follow the law more carefully.