Individualism vs. Collectivism: No Compromise Possible

Collectivism does not cause the group to focus on the group. It is, in the end, only done through physical force by those who choose to make the individual focus on the group----or suffer the consequences. Voluntary cooperation with a group, or voluntary assistance to a group, is not collectivism. Collectivism is the generic term that includes, but is not limited to, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism.

You therefore do not "balance out" your right to be an individual, with the force behind a collective.

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction." [1]

Why is it a compromise of basic principles to "balance out" individualism with collectivism?

"Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." [2]

Individualism goes back to the Protestant Revolution; but politically, individualism and "individual sovereignty" go back to the Enlightenment, derived from the concept of "natural rights" which collectivism denies.

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm

 

[1] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compro…
[2] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indivi…

Ardi Pithecus ™,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^sm,
  Journal of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ©,
 The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
   Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©
and   The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,
    are the educational arms of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC, and are:  
©2008-2010 by Curtis Edward Clark and, Naturalist Academy Publishing, ^sm

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

 

Objective Moral Standards

The first time the word "objective" was apparently used was "1610s, originally in the philosophical sense of 'considered in relation to its object'".

Objective moral truths are in relation to the object, rather than subjective in relation to pragmatic or other types of ends.

The object which such objective truths are in relation to is the standard that makes morality necessary: the life of Man both as species and as individual. This is set according to what Aristotle called "Man qua Man", or to put it another way, what is it about man that makes morals necessary?

It cannot be simply the preservation of the species--Hitler was doing that by preserving what he believed were Aryans. What Aristotle, Aquinas, Wm. of Occam, Averroes, and other rational thinkers could not conceive of didn't become a concrete idea until Jefferson and others like Madison and Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine read the works of Locke and Rousseau.

Locke, along with Rousseau, described a civilization in which government is "by the consent of the governed." This led to the American realization that there was such a thing as "individual sovereignty." This was logical, since to give consent to a government to do for you what is best not to do vigilante style, and what is best for "the general welfare", and what leaves you the most time on your hands for such things as living---to give consent you must first have that which you are giving away.

"Locke's theory of natural rights was, indeed, the theory of natural rights to which the Declaration would refer..."Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm

It is individual sovereignty, until the 18th century only a vague idea in the minds of freethinkers and libertarians, that is the source of the need for moral standards. "Objective truths" are those that correspond to man's nature as the rational animal: he must be given the freedom to utilize that rationality as nature has given it to him.

But more than that, it is that each man must be protected from force and coercion that would prevent him from utilizing that gift of individual sovereignty that nature gave him.

The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^sm,  
Journal of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ©, 
 The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©, 
 Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©
and The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,
  and Ardi Pithecus ™
  are the educational arms of 
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC, and are:  
©2008-2010 by Curtis Edward Clark and, Naturalist Academy Publishing, ^sm 

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com 

Powers Reserved to the States

Thirty-three States can soon be counted as having similar resolutions about their Tenth Amendment rights

Last month I wrote that some States are finally beginning to stand up for their Tenth Amendment rights. The Tenth Amendment Newly Ascending

"In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of 'hope' equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states," wrote A.W.R. Hawkins in HumanRights.Com

"When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together," Hawkins pointed out. This is one of the primary history lessons learned by all American elementary students when they are taught that each state was considered to be its own "country" before the ratification of the Constitution.

The amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Sometimes thought of as an afterthought, to 'sweep up' anything the Founders may have forgotten, the 10th Amendment today is taking on monumental importance as increasing federal intrusion into state affairs threatens to completely destroy the balance between state and federal power," says State Rep. Samuel E Rohrer, PA-128th District. 10th Amendment Center

The Founding Fathers "took pains to outline how the Constitutional structure of the government would prohibit the federal government from becoming big enough to overwhelm the powers of both the states and the democratic process," he said.

"Republicans and Democrats alike have been guilty of trampling states' rights for generations," said Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer. "Finally, elected officials in state legislatures across the country are pushing back."

The website MRStep makes the claim that thirty-three States can soon be counted as having similar resolutions about their Tenth Amendment rights.

As of this date, there seems to be little media attention paid to what the States are doing. I have seen no major online publications such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc., with articles on this movement; but there are dozens of independent online sites trying to keep it in front of the public.

At present, it seems the only purpose to which any State may be using their resolutions is to refuse to accept certain public funding that the Obama administration would like to force upon them, one case in point being the much publicized refusal of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin refusing Federal funding for special needs education, despite the fact that she and her husband have a special needs chile themselves.

Alaska is not the only State to consider refusing "line item" funding. Some States have said they would refuse certain funding because to do so with the expectation that they would pay back the Federal Treasury means they would have to raise taxes to do it!

Europe does not like Obama's nationalistic economic policies either. "The United States' decision to pump ever-larger sums into its economy is the 'road to hell,'" Mirek Topolanek, the President of the European Union, said Wednesday, just a week before he was set to meet the US president in London.

If the States face down the Obama administration, there will be a Constitutional upheaval such as we have not seen since the secession of the southern States during the Civil War.

Let us hope so. It may be the only saving grace left for individual sovereignty in this nation. The Ninth Amendment states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, [meaning the 1st through the 8th Amendments] shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And that means that just because some of our rights are guaranteed in writing does not mean we do not also retain "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States," because what is not delegated to Washington D.C. and not prohibited to the States "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [10th Amendment]

They are absolutely not reserved to the Federal government.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and

The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Man's Rights Without God's Existence

If God does not exist, then where do the "rights of man" come from? Glenn Beck, a good man with good intentions, said that without God man's rights would not exist because God gave them to us.

But the American Founders believed in something called "individual sovereignty" and that concept has as much validity with or without God. Natural rights are those said to belong to every human being by virtue of his rationality. This is because no man can have the right to decide another man's use of his will, and it is free will that is always at the center of the concept of "individualism".

It was Aristotle who termed man "the rational animal." Reason was a natural virtue, given by nature to every man and woman of normal mental capacity. Some people have better than normal, some people have less than normal and must be cared for. But virtues came in two varieties, according to Aristotle: mental, such as perception, abstraction, analytics, conceptualization, etc.

The second kind of virtue he termed "habitualized." This is virtue of character. This virtue is habitualized because only by acting on one's moral beliefs and practicing the principles in all our affairs can we gain what we call our "character" and our "integrity."

"Character" is the specific manner in which we practice the principles of our virtues, which by the way, is the practice of morals. Practicing principles of virtues is the practice of morality.

"Integrity" is the virtue itself of being consistent in the practice of one's morals. If we are seen to be relativists, doing one thing this time, another thing another time, and we cannot be counted on to be the same person each and every time, if we cannot be counted on for consistency in our means and objectives, if we cannot be predictible in the sense that our character can be known, then we have no integrity.

The life of habitualized virtues as the "central issue for Aristotle is the question of character or personality — what does it take for an individual human being to be a good person?" Character and integrity "must essentially involve the entire proper function of human life." Britannica

"One leading commentator says you could easily think of Aristotle as a supercilious prig. Aristotle purports to set out for us how we should live. I suppose this is consistent with his being a prig. But it is also what a lot of people think philosophy should be providing. Not logic chopping, not playing with bizarre ideas which bear very little relation to the world we have to live in, but offering wisdom, serious, considered, guidance on what life is all about and how we should deal with it." Aristotle's Ethics

How does this correspond with "natural rights" as "sovereignty" which pertains to what the law can and ought to guarantee, when the proposition is made that God did not provide us with these rights?

Let me reverse the question and ask: Why are natural rights with the attendent sovereignty of the individual only possible when given by God?

These two questions can be reconciled with the premise that "rights from God" and "natural rights" come from the same place; and, that one camp says if we don't accept rights as a gift from God we have nothing to be responsible toward, while the other camp says it is individual men to whom we must be responsible because if one wishes one's own sovereignty to be respected one must then respect the same sovereignty as it applies to another and all individuals.

Ayn Rand Predicted Today's World

Atlas Shrugged Tops Amazon's Bestseller List --Earlier this year Ayn Rand'sprophetic novel Atlas Shrugged was selling at triple the rate it soldat in the beginning of 2008. Now the novel is soaring to even greaterheights, and its trade paperback edition is currently in first place in the Classics category on Amazon.com's best-seller list forsales in the United States. The 50th anniversary mass-market paperback edition of Atlas Shrugged ranks as #2 and the trade paperback Centennial edition ranks as #3. For several weeks Atlas Shrugged has been holding steady in the top 10 best-sellers in the broader United States Literature and Fiction category, and as of the writing of this release, different editions of the novel stand at #3, #5 and #6 in Amazon'sranking. http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=JlsV9sK8abvp7QWvpCXtNg..http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=dqrrXDpVYiPsqpgXhwAlCg..

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and

The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Huckabee, The Kid, and Principles of Freedom

What do Mike Huckabee and a 13-year old conservative prodigy have in common? The kid's name is Jonathan Khron, he is the author of the book "Define Conservatism," and I will let him speak first.

Quite the "wunderkind," isn't he? Did you catch his "Four Principles of Conservatism"?

1. Respect for the Constitution
2. Respect for life
3. Less government
4. Personal responsibility

"Conservatism," he said, is the principle of protecting peoples' rights.

Now what did former Arkansas Governer Mike Huckabee say? He said (on Fox and Friends, 2/28/09) that capitalism is "better" in the marketplace with its "free hand" versus the government with its "heavy hand."

Where is the similarity? Both of them think conservatism is about principle, when in fact it is not about principle; it is about "preserving" the status quo from the liberals attempts to rip apart conservative values any further than they already have. Conservative values are not based on objectivity, but rather on the subjectivity that the free market is the best; not that it is right.

Neither of them mentioned the principle of the free market as the right of men with individual sovereignty. What is individual sovereignty? In a civilization it must be defined as the most freedom available while living under the rule of law.

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.

Man is born with absolute individual sovereignty, because where no government ruled him, and where no men enslaved him, all the unalienable rights given him by nature would remain with him. In a civilization of laws, some of those rights are alienated in order to secure the rule of law, but in return the individual actually gains.

He gains the freedom of having to police other men to secure the natural rights he is left with. He is free of having to enact individual justice when he has been wronged.

Because he is free to be himself without worry that others will--metaphorically or actually--put their fist, or a gun, in his face, he is free to use his energy in the pursuit of happiness.

The principle of "respect for life" means the respect for individual sovereignty. This does not mean the sovereignty of the people in the aggregate when defined as "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Huckabee meant just this very thing when he said capitalism was "better."

The problem with conservatives is they don't understand that capitalism is not "better." It is man's right by nature, by his nature as a free sovereign, and as the "rational animal."

Krohn said "respect for the Constitution" was a principle. Well, under the Tenth Amendment whereby the States have all the power not specifically given to the Federal government nor denied to the States themselves, the people have all other powers.

There is not one word in the Constitution that allows for the men operation of free men in a free market with the "heavy hand" of the government when it has a gun it that hand.

"Less government" means nothing except as a comparison. In the 21st century we need a government that is immensely larger than what was required in Jefferson's time. "Less" is not a standard. It may be a goal compared to what we currently have.

But the goal is a government that rules free men, not a "smaller" government. We can create a smaller government tomorrow and yet not get rid of the collectivism that the gun in the hand of government has pointed at our heads.

Capitalism is not a "better" system; it is the only system commensurate with free men operating in a free market under the rule of law that protects individual sovereignty.

The Republicans lost the last presidential election and the previous Congressional elections because they don't know what a principle is. They compete for the minds and hearts of the American people by offering them bromides about freedom while chosing an economic system based not on the freedom offered by that system, but on the fuzzy idea that it is a "better" system.

And they don't understand why it's better.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and
The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,
are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Bye, Bye, American Pie, As It Grinds to a Halt

Natural law as it applies to Mankind requires that men respect the boundaries of freedom that do not make economic or social slaves of others.

"Barack Obama made fifteen references to 'pie' in 100 seconds of a speech -- all about dividing up the pie of the American economy [while] his audience laughed and chanted, 'Pie! Pie!' to show how hungry they were. In one fell swoop Obama gave away the rapacity of socialism.

"Or as Michelle O explained, "The truth is, [ ] someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." James Lewis American Thinker

Lewis makes a compelling case about how, while "The Left likes to preen itself with the word ‘progressive,' [ ] it is actually the most regressive political strategy in history."

As I wrote in Monday's Academy Blogger, numerous states are currently declaring sovereignty from the Federal government.

For those not familiar with this concept, it has nothing to do with secession from the Union. It has everything to do with the Tenth Amendment, which states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"...

This means specifically and categorically that the Constitution was, as we know from history, created by the States to unite them under a Federalist system. What we have had for more than a hundred years is not Federalism, but Nationalism as inadvertantly conceived, in great part, from the creation of the "citizen of the United States" by the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This means the roles were reversed, whereby the States became agents of the national government. The States did not accept this during the debates over the design of the Union, did not write the Constitution to be National rather than Federal, and would not have signed it that way because the States intended to keep power from being centralized in D.C., which is the definition of a national government: centralization of power.

What in the Federal Constitution gives the President, the Congress, the Courts when they side with nationalism, Michelle O. and all others who think like her, to accept the Marxist decree, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

That is precisely what our First Lady said, and precisely what she meant. She meant what she said. So did the President when he made his "pie" speech; so did the crowd chanting, "Pie! Pie!"

"Socialism is rapaciously greedy -- that's what endless envy warfare comes down to. [ ] That is why everything is grist for the mill of Obama Marxism. Old-time Marxism just pitted the poor against the rich--[but] Odacity is voracious because there's never enough free pie. It's the pie supply that grinds to a halt," says Lewis in the Thinker.

The Obamas are not asking people to altruistically give up a portion of their own pies so that government may decide who it wishes to give it to; it is economically much worse and morally more evil than that. The Obamas are telling people that the government will take as much of the pie as they deem necessary in order to redistribute it to those they deem worthy or needy enough of receiving our stolen goods.

The States are tired of being "demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government...[ ] many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; yet a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States..." [condensed from the Michigan "Journal of the House of Representatives]

And yet, States are clamoring right now for the $40 billion removed (as of this writing) from the $815 billion (as of this writing) "stimulus" bill, which 200+ economists disagree will properly "stimulate".

To solve the problem of there never being enough pie, we must begin to recognize, as historically we used to do, at least two truths:
1) the pie belongs to those who made it, but they must voluntarily, capitalistically, re-distribute some of it--to those who can help them make the pie larger. When they capitalistically redistribute, the pie gets larger, and no one must altrusitically give some away, nor be forced at the point of the government's gun to have it taken from his/her politically dead, cold fingers. And
2) nature's evolution of man did not create him to be a rapacious beast toward the fellows of his own species. Natural rights are not to be compromised for the purposes of nationalism.

Natural law as it applies to Mankind requires that men respect the boundaries of freedom that do not make economic or social slaves of others. Everything the Left, and much of the Right, stands for anymore is a breach of that boundary.

That is why the Obama administration understands that a populist uprising will fill the streets of America will protests against these invasions of our Constitutional liberties--just as the streets of other nations are beginning to fill with protests.

"Seems to me that in tough economic times you can expect to see civil unrest, rioting and even armed resistance. The Federal government saw fit to recall soldiers from Iraq to post them on American soil waiting to be deployed to quell disorder..." Circle of 13

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Tenth Amendment Newly Ascending

"Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government..."

"In case you didn't hear about it on the mainstream media (which you haven't because they want to keep us asleep), numerous states are currently declaring sovereignty, including: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message720700/pg1

Washington [link to apps.leg.wa.gov]
New Hampshire [link to www.gencourt.state.nh.us]
Arizona [link to www.azleg.gov]
Montana [link to data.opi.mt.gov]
Michigan [link to www.legislature.mi.gov]
Missouri [link to www.house.mo.gov]
Oklahoma [link to axiomamuse.wordpress.com]
Hawaii [link to www.hawaii-nation.org] " Godlike Productions

What does this look like in legislative legaleze?

Here is that portion from the Michigan "Journal of the House of Representatives, 95th Legislature, Regular Session of 2009":

[all emphasis added for the purposes of this blog]
Rep. Opsommer offered the following concurrent resolution:
House Concurrent Resolution No. 4.
A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.
Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and
Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we hereby affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. We also urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Office of the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.
The concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

"[These States] have seen fit to reaffirm their sovereignty and make various demands to the Federal government in recent months. At the same time, the Federal government saw fit to recall soldiers from Iraq to post them on American soil waiting to be deployed to quell disorder, and are now coming out about their labor camps and forced civilian labor programs.

"Coincidence?

"Seems to me that in tough economic times you can expect to see civil unrest, rioting and even armed resistance. Especially when fascism increases right along side the economic collapse. Perhaps it would be best to draw out the "homegrown terrorists" before the general population is upset enough to be willing to listen to them and even stand beside them. Perhaps the government figures you'd be willing to actively rebel prematurely if you think your state government will support your efforts. Perhaps the government wants to appear weak and unable to cope with you so that they can take you out've the game before they really can't handle you." Circle of 13

It seems to this blogger that States rights as they were designed are finally being recognized once again, in light of the fact that for over a century "the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government," and that "the total scope of federal power [is] that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and [was] created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states."

It seems that Originalism in the reading of the Constitution is once again in vogue. Let us hope that, one by one, the States retreat from the fascism of the rule of Washington.

But let us also hope they do not retreat into their own State regimes of collectivism and ignore that the "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.

The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Catholic Insistince on Altruism to 'Spread the Wealth'

The 'Common Good' is Coerced Altruism

I have a list of twenty two blogs I try to scan daily, but the demands of writing my own blog, of trying to get a distance-based academy organized, working a daily job, and attending AA meetings and doing AA service work does not give me much time for the other blogs. I have to pick and choose. Some days I find nothing worthwhile; other days, like today, I found something I like--the blog that teaches me something.

It was on the Acton Institute Power Blog, named after Lord Acton who "made the history of liberty his life's work; indeed, he considered political liberty the essential condition and guardian of religious liberty."

http://www.acton.org/research/acton/index.php

What was it I learned? That Catholics have used the common good "as an excuse for more government involvement in peoples’ lives and the installing of socialistic, 'spread the wealth' programs." Dr. William Luckey

I dashed off a comment at the end of his blog. In the "Academy Blogger" I have debated the issue of "altruism" as being (originally) the Catholic version of the "eradication of self-centered desire, and a life devoted to the good of others; more particularly, selfless love and devotion to Society. In brief, it involved the self-abnegating love of Catholic Christianity redirected towards Humanity conceived as an ideal unity." [emphasis added] see "altruism" http://www.ditext.com/runes/a.html

The common good is therefor altruistic, requiring a lowest common denominator of the ego, common from one man to the next, a place where one must relegate his/her ego in order to eradicate self-interest, rational though it may be, or not; and where the common good is attained by devoting one's self selflessly--as if that is not an incomprehensible contradiction--in an act of totally "eradicating" the self.

This is most certainly not the same as what our Founders meant by the "general Welfare," when they wrote that phrase in the Constitution; it is the opposite. The "general Welfare" is the protection of the sovereignty of the individual, sovereignty composed of all the powers not delegated to nor prohibited to the Federal government or the governments of the "several States." Whatever is left over, (and almost everything was "left over" until the administration of FDR's "New Deal",) is necessary for the operation of a free individual.

We no longer retain the right to our individual sovereignty. But I have covered that a dozen times in this Blogger. The Choir Sings the Hymn "Individual Sovereignty" Power Reserved to the People, Respectively Laissez-Fairre: the Economics of Individual Sovere... Tocqueville and Individualism et al.

The "general Welfare" is justice in the political arena, which includes economics. The "common good" has become the language used to hide the injustice of imposed altruism.

Anything imposed against what is just, is coercion; anything imposed to insure justice, is not coerced. Each of these ideas is what it is by definition. You could turn each statement around and make the same arguments: Coercion is that which is unjustly imposed; coercion is not that which is justly imposed.

What is justly imposed must, by the same definition, take only as little from an individual's sovereignty as is needed for the "common sovereignty," i.e., government instituted of, by, and for the governed themselves.

It is true that there must be coerced "common good" among people who are not willing to abnegate their egos to society. The best of the recent examples of an uncoerced person was Mother Theresa, who we now know abnegated her ego to the will of a God who she thought, for twelve years, had deserted her. That, aside from the willingness of Jesus to be crucified for all others in the human race, is as altruistic as one can be and not be coerced.

But going that distance is much more than Dr. Luckey is talking about. "This [coerced] version of the common good is the foundation for some people’s idea of distributive justice, but actually it is based on the 'Robin Hood fallacy' of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." [emphasis added]

What is distributive justice? "[T]he first relatively simple principle of distributive justice examined is strict egalitarianism, which advocates the allocation of equal material goods to all members of society." [emphasis added] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [see also No Justice in "Luck Egalitarianism" ]

How does Dr. Luckey know it is the Robin Hood syndrome? Merely "by reading Aristotle and St. Thomas. Both of those great thinkers say that government must rule for the common good, but both of them oppose 'common good' to the 'particular' or 'private' good. . . nowhere in Aristotle or St. Thomas does it say that the common good is the exclusive or even main province of the government. They merely give a negative prohibition that the state cannot make laws which are good for only one segment of society." [emphasis added]

One segment of society is exactly what distributive justice is about: the use of coercion to force altruism on those who have, for the benefit of those who have not.

Ayn Rand made an unwitting error in her Playboy interview of 1964. But her error was in not being able to see the future, and the rise of a popular Marxist like Barak Obama.

"Collectivism," she said, "as an intellectual power and a moral ideal, is dead."

But in the very next breath she was absolutely correct, and she is still correct to this day; "But freedom and individualism, and their political expression, capitalism," she continued, "have not yet been discovered."

Forty-eight years later, her second statement is still correct, and that is why collectivism was allowed to remain alive: the world has still not "discovered" the nature and the source of capital.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Choir Sings the Hymn "Individual Sovereignty"

Preaching to the Choir

Today, I refer you to several sites I think have importance to metaphysical naturalism, of which the concept of individual sovereign rights is the only moral political system qua system worthy of man.

This includes capitalism as the only economic system qua system worthy--because of its unalienablility--of the sovereign rights of man; it includes the sovereign rights of individuals to marry without the dogma of religious intolerance for homosexuals overwhelming the wall of separation between church and state; and on a little bit of a different subject, but same theme, the attempt--as bungled as it was--to make the American public see the hidden agenda of the impending Obama economic spectacle, not to mention the leftist political agenda of a man who has friends most of us would shun.

Curtis Edward Clark

Nationalization Is Theft

Venezuela, Russia, and other countries that nationalize natural resources are violating private property rights.
By Thomas A. Bowden

For years, the Canadian operator of a huge Venezuelan gold project known as Las Cristinas has been seeking an environmental permit to start digging. Well, Crystallex International Corporation can stop waiting--the mine is being nationalized as part of dictator Hugo Chavez’s long-running program of socialist takeovers. “This mine will be seized and managed by a state administration” with help from the Russians, said Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz.

It’s not surprising that a brute like Chavez would want to grab the 16.9 million ounces of gold estimated to lie buried in the Las Cristinas reserve. But what’s more puzzling is why--when gold mines, oil rigs and refineries worth billions of dollars are nationalized by regimes such as Venezuela and Russia--the ousted companies can muster no moral indignation, only tight-lipped damage appraisal.

[For original with Continuation, click on the headline] Ayn Rand Institute Op-Eds

Proposition 8 and Race
[Prop 8 was on the California ballot]

Wayne Besen

I can understand why white gay people are angry. I certainly am. But, let's take a step back and look at this dispassionately. I believe our failure with the African American vote (70% voted in favor of Prop. 8) has more to do with education levels than race. In general, people with lower levels of education - of any race - do not vote for gay rights. White people are twice as likely to graduate college as black people. This accounts for the difference by race on Prop. 8.

Think of it this way. 57 percent of white people with a college education voted No on Prop. 8. Yet, 58 percent of white people with no college voted yes on 8. In other words, uneducated urban black people vote very much like uneducated rural white people.

Uneducated people - black, white and Hispanic - often derive their power from physical strength. They perceive being gay as weak and antithetical to real manhood. By voicing support for gay rights, they lose status and often fear rivals may perceive them as gay. The easiest way to gain status is dissing faggots. I see this attitude all the time in Brooklyn - in the gym and on the basketball court, where I often play. (Not the best sample, I realize this)
[For original with continuation, click on headline] Wayne Besen - Daily Commentary

The Sarah Palin - John McCain Highwater Mark

There was only one catch, and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.

Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and he would have to fly more missions.

Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them.

If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to, but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to.

Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
[This was the entire posting. It seems apropos to what the McCain Campaign was all about. But if you wish to see it in its original, click on the headline] No Exit



The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Power Reserved to the People, Respectively

Eliminate Constitutional Clause and Give Power back to the People, Respectively

"The best way to limit the federal Leviathan is to have Congress and the presidency controlled by different parties," said Ilya Shapiro of the blog of the Cato Institute. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/24/a-plea-for-divided-government/

Wrong. That statement of Shapiro's demonstrates the similarities between the so-called conservatives and the out-and-out liberals.

The best way to limit the federal Leviathian is to stick to the origins of the Constitution. That is called "originalism," or sometimes "original intent". Wikipedia explains it this way:

"In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a family of theories central to all of which is the proposition that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, which was established at the time of its drafting."

This does not in any way prevent it from being applied to American law in any decade or any century. The original intent can--and ought--to be applied because that was the intent of those who wrote it. They provided us with the means to change their intentions, and that means was not to ignore their intentions. That means was not to place any meaning on their words that fit our purposes. That means was to either nullify by Amendment where necessary, or alter by legislation where allowed, the intention of their words.

The answer to the question of why we, in the 21st Century ought to follow the spirit of their words is because that spirit is the spirit of Americanism. We can keep the spirit but change the words that transfigure what they saw in the 18th C. into what we see in the 21st. To ignore their intent is "rule by men", not rule by law.

Original intent theory is interpretation of the Constitution consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is with this view that most originalists, such as Justices Scalia and Thomas, are associated.

Just this year the Supreme Court proved that originalism could be used effectively, when it ruled on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Court effectively nullified the first clause which made the Amendment appear to require a "well maintained militia" to enable the right to bear arms. The Court, after reviewing hundreds of documents from the Colonial period, decided that it was never the intention of the drafters and signers of the Constitution to limit arms to the maintanance of a militia.

By ruling in this way, the Court proved that originalism will sometimes benefit the America of the 21st Century. Had it declared that it was indeed the intent of the Colonialists to limit the right to bear arms to the militia, it still would have made the correct decision if the historical facts supported the decision. But at that point it would have been up to Congress to write a new amendment that would override the "militia clause" of the Second Amendment.

Originalism is the way the Constitution is supposed to work. If history does not support the facts of life as they exist today, as the Constitution was written, then it is within the right of the people to amend the Constitution.

Originalism, besides limiting the size and scope of the federal government, will return to the States that which is not "prohibited to" them, and which "are reserved to the States respectively"; which will subsequently return to We, the People, what is not prohibited to us and is reserved to each of us respectively. [Tenth Amendment]

What is reserved to each of us respectively is sovereignty of self, otherwise called individual sovereignty. Laissez-Fairre: the Economics of Individual Sovereignty

No one on the right or the left is going to convince me to believe that being a "citizen of the United States" is better than being a "Citizen of the Several States" of the united States. It is not better to be part of a government Leviathian than to be part of a semi-autonomous region.

This does not mean an Afghani or Iraqi style autonomous tribalism--it never did, and it will not--not so long as all the people of all the "several States" remembers that there are limits to what is achievable when home rule is brought closer to "home."

The "citizens of the United States" clause of the 14th Amendment should be struck down. That would eliminate most of the Federal power over the States. We were never intended to be citizens of the "United States". The Continental Congress did not set it up that way. They deliberately limited the size and scope of the Federal government. Since Senator John McCain wants to cut funding for all but what he or Congress or someone deems is "necessary," this is the route he should take.

Of course it would take a Libertarian who is strong as Ronald Reagan to do such a thing.

I don't think McCain is even a libertarian. But he should return as much power to the States as he can without mandating, as Reagan did, that the States pick up the Federal slack.

Picking up that slack is not downsizing--it is passing it off on the States.

Give the power back to the States, don't mandate anything except to follow the remaining and existing Federal statutes (or sue the Federal government over it, the legal way of resolving disputes,) and when we all see power returning to the People, we will not only be empowered again politically as we once were; but we will be empowered psychologically as we have not been since before the Civil War.

Note: originalintent.org is one of several organizations dedicated to "Restoring the Republic...One Citizen at a Time."

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Identify Natural Law with Capitalism

Learn to Identify Natural Law and Ethics:

Begin with Capitalism

Naturalist ethics could not have devised such a convoluted law as that "fathers' rights" law in one state that makes a man claim responsibility for a pregnancy before the pregnancy is known about, let alone confirmed--if he wants any rights. [see Natural Law continued ]

But before we understand why, we must understand why Capitalism is the foundation for a natural rights philosophy, given that capital does indeed exist. Capital did not always exist. Capitalism is a fairly recent development in the economic underpinnings of man's affairs.

Under primitive bartering civilizations, property used for barter must be given the same consideration as Capital in our world. In our world, Capital is the barterable chicken, the service of shoeing a horse, the dozen eggs, or the handmade implement that would be the subject of barter. Capital is property just like a cow.

Underlying all other rights is the right to property: first, to the property of one's own being; secondly to the values that may be produced by one's own being. The property of one's own being involves and includes individual sovereignty, where sovereignty is defined as "indigenous" http://folklife.si.edu/resources/center/cultural_policy/pdf/RobAlbrofellow.pdf ; "substantive ("inherent and inalienable") [Locke] http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/naturallaw.htm ; or as "that state in which an individual would find him/herself if he/she was the only individual in existence."

That "state" is as natural as it gets. But in such a state, as a matter of fact until only a few short hundreds of years ago, capital was not even a consideration. But once its existence became a fact, became known, and its holders knew its value as intangible assets, its ownership had to be accepted as indigenous and substantive, inherent, and inalienable as the ownership of one's own being. The reason for this is because capital is the creation of the being of individual humans.

Capital as wealth is created, in the same manner that art is created, as a meal is created, as a home is created--by the mind and hands of men.

Ownership of one's own being is designated as 'individual sovereignty," and "was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.; http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm Today, people scoff at the notion, presuming what modern education teaches, lacking as it is in its original "liberal" roots: that only nations can have sovereignty. Even the sovereignty of each American State is being whittled away by national sovereignty. "Liberal" education in its original roots led Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others to consider and endorse at least the concept of "common sovereignty," derived from the "consent of the governed." It took the Americans to understand that what becomes "common" must have its roots in individualism first. No individual can contribute to what becomes "common" unless he or she first owns it in order to relinquish it up to the "common sovereignty."

Individual sovereignty is still is the common assumption today, among naturalists. Kelly Ross goes on to say, "If 'to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men,' this can only mean that something, from which people must be protected, threatens the exercise of rights to 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'" Governments instituted through the consent of the governed get their powers only from those powers the citizens are willing to give to it. They cannot give to it what they, themselves, do not posses.

"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual," writes James M. Buchanan, "must be carefully examined, particularly in terms of the implications for current discussions in Europe, Mexico, and the United States." http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-8.html

"The explicit claim is that the individual is the sovereign unit in society; his natural state is freedom from and equality with all other individuals; this is the natural order of things." Joseph J. Ellis; "American Sphinx,The Character of Thomas Jefferson"

An extremely radical but acceptable view for millions, especially for Americans, runs in the Objectivist line of thinking, as with these quotes from "Objectivism and Thomas Jefferson; 6. The Non-Initiation of Force" : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otj60.htm

"As a corollary to an individualist society, it is necessary that a nation not have the right or power to compel actions [such as conscription], even for its own survival. Were that right allowed, a nation of people would be permitted collectively to identify duties and responsibilities that individuals owed to the common good and then could compel with force if necessary unwilling citizens. To permit that would be inconsistent with the form of individualism in which individual rights actually mean that no human authority can compel an individual to do anything other than to desist from initiating force against another individual. Therefore, the 'non-initiation of force' is a necessary part of the philosophy of individualism." [ibid]

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson;" thus:

see Natural Law: Begin with Capitalism for continuation

Join the Financial Bailout Debate

What if you could sit side by side with a Cato scholar at a debate forum and offer suggestions on topics like the financial bailout plan, health care, national security and education?
The Cato Institute is participating in a debate series hosted by a new interactive site, Google Knol. The debates on Knol are meant to offer a variety of in-depth opinions from experts, and afford visitors the opportunity to engage scholars on the ideas that are posted. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/07/join-the-financial-bailout-debate/

Gmail Goggles: Joke or brilliant self-censorship tool?

The folks at Gmail have developed a number of optional add-ons for their flagship e-mail program. Some let you improve your productivity. Others give you new ways to organize message. And now there's one designed to prevent you from sending inappropriate e-mails when you're drunk. http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/gmail-goggles-joke-or-brillian.html

If our wildest dreams became reality

"It is not just those who built the QE2 who look on the ship with a special fondness. In an odd way, it is as though the boat manages to unite the classes, even though it represents what divides them. One reason it can do this is that the cruise ship has for a long time been the ultimate symbol of luxury, but at the same time it is something that most people could aspire to enjoy as a once-in-a-lifetime experience. People started work or got married with dreams of setting sail on a cruise for their retirement or ruby wedding anniversary, and often that's just what they did." http://julianbaggini.blogspot.com/2008/10/if-our-wildest-dreams-became-reality.html

Note: I will be the featured speaker at the Center For Inquiry (CFI) meeting, October 16, 2008, in Portage, Michigan. The topic is "Atheism as a 'Religion' Protected by Courts According to the Establishment Clause" CEC

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of the
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®