Is Egalitarianism Unconstitutional?steemCreated with Sketch.

in #politics5 years ago (edited)

Not only is enforced egalitarianism apparently unconstitutional, it’s also a goal which is both economically plus philosophically impossible to achieve, as well as being societalcide, self-destruction — because it only leads (every damn time in the history of human civilization) to Seven Kill Stele megadeath if the power vacuum of egalitarianism defection is not filled by the strong and rational.

We’re at a very dangerous juncture for Western civilization because it seems nearly everyone (at least in the West) incorrectly thinks egalitarianism is beneficial.

Click all my links, otherwise you’ll bypass reading points which support my conclusions.

Impossibility of Enforcing Fairness

Martin Armstrong recently wrote:

How is it possible that we can have legalized class warfare and politicians run on extorting the rich at gun point with threat of imprisonment if they do not pay their “fair share” which is somehow a higher percentage than everyone else and this miraculously does not violate Equal Protection and Justice for All?

Which echos the theme of what I had written before that:

The dilemma you describe of the inability to have liberty without forcing liberty—which as you point out is ironically the antithesis of liberty—exists because of the collective’s capability to use more force than the individual. Max Weber’s canonical definition of government is: a monopoly on the use of force.

What you’re essentially pointing out is that liberty is not possible because leeches game the political economics and subject the society to their leeching. And any conservative group that claims to offer a better (e.g. “more righteous or meritorious”) order is still depending on collectivized force and thus is a power vacuum that ultimately is captured by leeches. Both the Libertards and Conservatzars are hypocrites.

Thus my current goal with my decentralized ledger R&D is to ameliorate the power of the centralized collective.

The more resources we put technologically out-of-the-reach of leeches, the more impotent leeching becomes.

Leeching destroys society not because society can’t produce enough for most people to be lazy, but because leeching (aka socialism aka Marxism) enable/force totalitarianism wherein the most powerful who captures the power vacuum must also be the most corrupt (in order to retain power) and megadeath all those leeches in the end. Leeching is a cyclical, repeating self-destructive cancer on civilization that periodically razes civilization to the ground in a 600 year Dark Age.

Again I view my decentralized ledger technology work very seriously, because we are entering (at least in the West) the totalitarian end-game phase of socialism.

Unconstitutionality of Enforcing Fairness

Martin Armstrong continued to explain the profound unconstitutionality of enforcing fairness:

The Supreme Court dances around this issue that clearly is unconstitutional and is a Communist idea championed by Karl Marx, which is the cornerstone of leftist politics. Yet, when we peal back the veneer and we look at the same principle in other contexts, we suddenly see a conflict of law. For example.

… [discussion of landmark Supreme Court majority decision supporting the constitutional argument in a related context] …paying dues toward union functions outside collective bargaining was unconstitutional and held that the unions “may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.” In other words, unions would have to ask for nonmembers’ permission to collect political assessments and, possibly, any dues at all. “Individuals should not be compelled to subsidize private groups or private speech.”

The very idea that a person should pay a progressively higher percentage of their income based upon their God given skills flies in the face of certainly the Fifth Amendment Taking Clause, which reads: “[n]o person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Nowhere in the Constitution is there any hint that equal justice applies for all except if you make more than your neighbor. Progressive taxation also violated the Freedom of Religion under the First Amendment for one of the Ten Commandments is very clear on the subject:

As is well known, the climax of the constitutional controversy in the United States over a federal income tax came in 1895 in the celebrated Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895). An income tax with explicitly graduated rates, enacted during the Civil War, was held to be constitutional in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (i88o), however, the progressive feature of that tax was not in controversy during that case so it was not actually decided. What is usually remembered about these cases is that the Supreme Court adopted the views of taxpayers’ counsel that a tax on the income from real and personal property is a direct tax within the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states, and that since these aspects of the tax were not separable the whole tax, the result was that the tax was patently unconstitutional.

So the Supreme Court ruled that a prior version of the income tax was unconstitutional for the same structure that the new one had, but the Supreme Court due to a tie vote avoided ruling on the progressive nature of new one (which is the ancestor of the one we have until now). And the worst part is the people cheered this unconstitutional tax because the witless fall into the woodchipper:

Nonetheless, lift the rug and we discover the origin of progressive taxation. The tax in question in 1894, had a flat rate of 2% on income but allowed each individual taxpayer an exemption of $4,ooo. Therefore, anyone earning more than $4,000 were discriminated against creating progressiveness which the public cheered as to be expected. That is the argument against democracy for it allows the majority to treat any minority unfairly.

In presenting their positions to the Court, counsel for the taxpayers did argue a substantial portion of their brief on the progressive nature of the tax in addition to the direct taxation argument. They maintained that the tax, because of the various progressive exemptions, violated the constitutional requirement of uniformity of indirect taxes and contravened the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They focused on the $4,ooo exemption. On the issue of uniformity the Court divided four to four and therefore expressed no opinion. Even the dissenting opinions avoided discussing the issue.

Chief Justice Steven Fields did write an opinion arguing for the unconstitutionality of progressive taxation:

Only in the concurring opinion of Justice Field is the question or progressiveness even explored. Justice Steven Field (on bench 1863 – December 1, 1897) argued that it was indeed the arbitrariness of the exemption that would in itself have been a sufficient basis for invalidating the tax. The income tax law under consideration was marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminated between those who receive an income of $4,ooo and those who do not. It was a blatant and arbitrary discrimination embodied within the whole legislation. Justice Field thus is the only Justice to directly address the issue whereas everyone else has avoided discussing the validity of progressive taxation because it benefits government.

Nature Isn’t Fair

Armstrong goes on to explain that more than a decade later in 1916 during a time of war, Chief Justice Edward White wrote a decision on the progressive nature of income taxation and made corrupt, baseless jurisprudence claims w.r.t. the Equal Protection issue. So essentially the Constitution had been usurped at that point and the rule of law and due process abandoned.

Nature is a meritocracy only in the sense that it’s an evolutionary competition for resiliency of the species and maximization of total entropy in the Universe. If this bothers anyone emotionally or for what ever reason, then they live in denial, but that won’t help anyone advert the reality of it. Caveat emptor. And “inalienable or natural rights” don’t exist.

Equal opportunity can’t be enforced because nature will never allow it. Equality would be devoid of competition and entropy would cease to increase in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is fundamental to the physics of our Universe.

Sort:  

funny, I was just thinking this sounded a lot like a recent Martin Armstrong article I read, and then I noticed... it was! lol :)

Yeah the legal argument comes from him. I’m adding my work interleaved. You’ll find some parallels between my ideas and his, but there are also some differences. For example, I think MA is naive if he thinks Equal Protection is a valid concept. So I’m actually implying that his entire thesis is flawed and the Constitution is flawed. Philosophy of Law is not a suitable solution the problems of the power vacuum of political economics. That’s why I’m working on decentralization technology.

I think MA is naive if he thinks Equal Protection is a valid concept

Throughout my life I never considered myself to be a rascist— meaning I didn’t attempt to judge people based on their race. Heck I have smidgen of Cherokee lineage mixed in with my Welsh (”Moore” and “Shelby” as family names), southern French/Italian (“Primo”), and German (“Hartwick”). And I attended all negro elementary school in Baton Rouge, where afair my sister and I were the only white skinned kids in the entire school other than some of the teachers. I grew up around Louisiana negros in the latter portion of my elementary school years. Although I can say I did perceive the female gender as inherently different than the male, but only recently began to understand the nature of these differences.

So when I read James A Donald’s recent blog that basically characterizes negros as inherently thugs and Mexicans (descendants from the Aztecs) as tribal to the extent of ritualistic sacrifice ingrained into their psyche, I related it back to my real world experiences. And unfortunately I have to agree with him about negros if we’re excluding the outliers. I experienced the thuggery many times in Louisiana growing up. This doesn’t mean that every black person is going to commit thuggery every day, but there’s a predisposition for it to occur. Even the way that negros communicate with each other reflects this psyche. For example, readers can listen to Jordan Clarkson relating what Kobe Byrant told him about “dunk it like a dark skin” where Kobe was insinuating to dunk it more violently.

I don’t dislike negros. I’ve even had friends who are negros. I can interact, admire, and perhaps even love just as I would any other person. I can also consider to the specific capabilities of a person, regardless of their race. Yet I will be aware there are inherent differences that I need to pay attention to. In many circumstances, those inherent differences may not matter, but in other situations they may. Why should I unrealistically expect in a general sense a negro to have the same genetics as I do, when the in fact I also know that I cannot overcome some of the realities of my own genetics (i.e. I can’t jump as high as many of them do, because of genetics). White men adapted to cold climates and using their mind and not predominately their physicality to survive frozen winters. Africans adapted to a very physically oriented survival. I don’t know whether these differences are fading fast because of the cultural acceleration of evolution that Freeman Dyson explained. Maybe so and I will lookout for theories and data on this topic. I’m open-minded. I may for example have to opportunity soon to do computer science work with some bright Indians, and I need to see what they are capable of and what if any innate cultural/genetic characteristics come into play and what impact does that have on the work production. Again I have an open-mind and need to observe carefully.

I think Jim is correct that Latinos are more erratically violent than northern whites (although perhaps southern whites such as in the Baltics also have some very violent gangs…remember reading about a negro football player from Alabama was killed by a gang in Serbia). I observed this during my visits to Mexico, Guatemala, and Colombia in 1993 and 2001. I also experienced it first-hand when I was attacked by a gang in the Philippines and consequently lost vision in my right eye. I also observe this quality in myself that the smidgen of Cherokee blood I have can cause me to well up with ferocity at any erratic moment just based on even the slightest of innuendo or attitude of someone else that I dislike. I have to constantly work to keep that inferno capped and channel it into aggressive sports to keep it from building up too much pressure (i.e. it has to be exercised, it’s innate). If I’m racist then I’m racist against myself also. Rather I think I’m just trying to be rational and correctly analyze the facts.

For example, here in the Philippines, best friends will occasionally hack each other to death with machetes during some drinking session. Or I remember my filipina maid telling me her father in the mountain had killed a few men just because he didn’t like their high pride attitude.

It seems the Europeans stopped being violent when they no longer had a rational economic reason to be so, i.e. the Vikings were violent only for economic reasons. They diversified into mental means of economic development.

Another recent event that motivated me to write this post, is the Black Panther movie mass hysteria going on in the USA. Entertainment, basketball, rap (thuggery) music, etc.. will not be economic when the Western debt bubble implodes soon. The widespread infatuation with Jeremy Meeks and rappers in the USA, is indicative of the decadence of the society. Whites got to the high economic status they had with engineering. And now China is taking those reins to reign while we in the West commit ideological and cultural suicide.

Decadence with drugs and weed:

https://www.quora.com/What-countries-will-you-never-visit-again/answer/Kyle-Zhang-19
https://www.quora.com/What-countries-will-you-never-visit-again/answer/Anya-Mary

Loading...

No wonder why this isn't taught in school!

Anonym

That’s an excellent discussion point to raise. It’s quite interesting to note that the Gaussian (aka normal) distribution is the only distribution which maximizes entropy. Negentropy is the distance of a distribution from the Gaussian distribution.

To say that living things are more ordered than maximally uncertain, is not a refutation that nature seeks maximum entropy overall. For example the extinction of species forgets ordered information and imports entropy anew into any perspective on nature. I think you’re conflating nature as universal entity and a given state of the universe snapshot from any given perspective (which of course is relativistic and thus not a totally ordered perspective of nature).

So if our civilisation reboot, we will do it from the perspective of equal opportunity.

I don’t see how that follows and I don’t have time to dig. Cite something please.

Anonym

For some unknown reason I just spewed (archived) a blown fuse on some random person’s Medium blog (she’s like the mayor of Seattle or something similarly unimportant):

And apparently being a defender of legalized marijuana which fucks up our youth! Yet I realize the entire West coast is politically into that, so I guess I shouldn’t single you out. Hey that’s okay there’s needs to be some places for all the stoners to go and wreck the local economy and public health (and with all the natural and coming man-made disasters in California, I don’t even have to be jealous that includes one of the most amenable climates in the USA where I attended high school). No, it will never be acceptable to conservatives. The USA will split apart in a civil war because there’s no way that the Bible belt is going to go along with this.

Over here in the Philippines, I’ve observed first-hand Duterte clean up the huge mess that drugs was creating over here. Yet the ideological suicide of the West is that ideology trumps pragmatism and economics. That’s what happens when for example when Rome became decadent and we’re on the way there in the West by 2032. Mark my word. It’s wonderful to see private individuals helping others. But the socialism (doing via top-down control of government) is bankruptcy, because we’re always spending “someone else’s money” in a futile attempt to destroy the Gaussian and power-law distributions of nature. Simply impossible to sustain. Nature always wins. Because egalitarianism is inconsistent with itself. Oh but when you charge the costs to the collective debt (aka socialism), then junk science (lies!) and more unscientific data massaging lies in support of egalitarianism, is mighty profitable (until as a result the society collapses into the economic and warlordism abyss).

Jordan Peterson destroys SJW Cathy Newman (links to discussion)

Tangentially, on the issue of damned facts which are ideologically uncomfortable for SJWs, note clinical psychologist Peterson isn’t entirely correct to characterize females as always more agreeable than males, although they can be agreeable/subservient when obeying whom they perceive to be an alpha male. Rather females are perhaps less openly confrontation, yet far more irresponsible and disruptively conniving when they need to be in order to meet their evolutionary requirement to be bear offspring with the most alpha male plausible at any costs. Whereas, men are more openly confrontational but can be quite agreeable to building civilization and technology when their beta male role is acceptable to their evolutionary requirement to bear offspring with any woman (and as many as realistically plausible). This is why for example men must accept their subjugation by the elite (alpha male leaders) master plan for Bitcoin (to the extent that decentralization doesn’t apply to organization of civilization). Females can’t be focused on leadership and big picture civilization strategy because it’s counter to their necessary evolutionary role to be subservient to an alpha male (unless forced by civilization to be subservient to a beta male) because they can only carry a few eggs to gestation in their short reproductive lifespan. Even clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson attests to this fact. In terms of evolutionary resilience, eggs are rare and sperm is abundant (only one surviving male could impregnate surviving females but not vice versa).

There’s no progression in “progressive leader”. Asians understand that civilization, religion, morals, etc. are a cycle. Something loony about those of European descent that think human nature and politics are on a continual path of progression & improvement. Nope. Technology is continually progressing. Civilization and human nature are cyclical. But of course I’m a loon in your eyes. So be it. Remember my prophetic words come 2032.

Speaking of Irish Catholic lineage, slave girls used to be money in Ireland. And remember civilization has and will always be cyclical. Lol. And some of the history Catholic church is ignominious (although Christianity did preserve the libraries during the Dark ages). See what politics really is? The illusion of democracy via the debt-spigot is an alternative to war over our differences. But eventually the debt-spigot turns off. Then war…

Loading...

My comment at the highly censored StackExchange was deleted by the mods as proven by an archived copy:

Although you could follow the suggestions of the answers to leverage the law to fight on your behalf, eventually you’ll be in a situation in the real world where you’ll be on your own to deal with it. How could raise your self-esteem or personal power to deal with this on your own? That’s what I’d be thinking about long-term. Thus by implication I think the answers lower your self-esteem and personal power by handing you crutches. SJW is not an economically competitive career.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.22
TRX 0.06
JST 0.025
BTC 20129.61
ETH 1351.12
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.48