By Reginald Welkin
The Cold War, what was it really? Yes, it was a strategic fight between Soviet Nations and Western nations, that involved little direct conflict, but a host of wars by proxy in numerous countries spanning the globe. The US and Soviet Russia were allies during World War II and in just a few years, were where preparing for nuclear war. What happened?
James Madison, discussed one aspect of it when he wrote: “If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations, who may be within the reach of its enterprizes, to take corresponding precautions.”[i] In other words, it is only natural for other countries to increase their militaries when one of their neighbors improves its military, and it would be pretty naïve for a country not to do so.
Several of the Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of a Standing Army or Navy. They felt that to all countries that had them were either using them in times of peace to suppress freedoms in their countries, or that they were the cause of or the means of engaging in unneeded wars. John Adams wrote: “A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People. Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a Body distinct from the rest of the Citizens. They have their Arms always in their hands. Their Rules and their Discipline is severe. They soon become attachd to their officers and disposd to yield implicit Obedience to their Commands. Such a Power should be watchd with a jealous Eye.”[ii] This is what happened in Rome, in 49 BC, when Julius Caesar marched his army across the Rubicon river. His men were more loyal to their military leader than to their country and fellow citizens. Alexander Hamilton states: “But in a country, where the perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it, her armies must be numerous enough for instant defence. The continual necessity for his services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees, the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them as masters, is neither remote nor difficult: but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold, or effectual resistance, to usurpations supported by the military power.”[iii] [iv]
It is quite fascinating how members of both current Primary Parties (Democrats and Republicans[v]) support a standing army and its use. It is true that Democrats often claim to want a smaller military and clamor whenever Republicans enter a war[vi], but when they are in power or feel the need for military action[vii], they are often quite loud in their desire for war.[viii] Republicans often are more supportive of the military, but are quick to judge military decisions made by Democrats.
It is only some of the smaller Secondary Parties who are for limiting (e.g. Libertarians[ix]) or abolishing (e.g. The Green Party[x]) standing militaries in America. It is quite apparent that some form of defense is needed to “secure our borders” or defend our country, but it also is pretty obvious that militaries are not only a temptation to go to war, but are also a danger to citizens[xi] in general. The general consensus on Standing Armies has changed with time, and the Founding Father’s respect for Militias has been greatly eroded by modern ideas and extremist groups.
Many tend to jump into a variety of positions that don’t always make sense. Some assume a standing army is a necessary evil while others say that we should shift into a militia styled on that of modern Israel or other countries that rely on Conscription. Maybe someone should begin to look at something other than compromise, maybe an Intersection of Ideals for constructing a functional defense force. Maybe someone should start proposing creative ideas like Term Limits for Military Officers. Either way, people from every part of the Political Spectrum can fear the dangers of a Police State, but often only when it targets them. Maybe in Time of Peace, we should have our armies take a seat.
[i] Madison, James (Jan 19, 1788), Federalist No. 41, Via The University of Chicago, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s22.html, Accessed: Sept 2, 2017.
[ii] Adams, Samuel (1776), Letter to James Warren, Via The Samuel Adams Heritage Society, http://www.samuel-adams-heritage.com/documents/samuel-adams-to-james-warren-1776.html, Accessed: Sept 2, 2017.
[iii] Hamilton, Alexander (Nov 20, 1787), Federalist No. 8, Via The Portable Library of Liberty, http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/192.html, Accessed: Sept 2, 2017.
[iv] Federalist No. 8, Via Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._8, Accessed: Sept 2, 2017.
[v] Collins, Dan (Oct 3, 2002) “Congress Says Yes to Iraq Resolution” ,CBC, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-says-yes-to-iraq-resolution/, Accessed Sept 2, 2017.
[vi] Loughlin, Sean (July 10, 2003) “Democrats Step up Criticism of Bush on Iraq”, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/10/democrats.iraq/index.html, Accessed Sept 2, 2017.
[vii] Levy, Gabrielle (Apr 7, 2017), “Clinton, Democrats See Hypocrisy in Trump’s Syria Posture”, US News, https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-04-07/clinton-democrats-see-hypocrisy-in-trumps-syria-posture, Accessed Sept 2, 2017.
[viii] Rogin, Josh (June 18, 2014), “Hillary Clinton Pushed Obama to Keep Troops in Iraq”, The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-pushed-obama-to-keep-troops-in-iraq, Accessed Sept 2, 2017.
[ix] “2016 Platform”, Libertarian Party, https://www.lp.org/platform/, Accessed Sept 2, 2017.
[x] “Ten Key Values”, Green Party, http://www.gp.org/ten_key_values_2016, Accessed Sept 2, 2017.
[xi] Berlin, Jonathan & Rumore, Kori (Jan 27, 2017), “12 Times the President Called in the Military Domestically”, Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-national-guard-deployments-timeline-htmlstory.html, Accessed Sept 2, 2017.
Anonymous Sources and Propaganda
Part 2 in the series Propaganda
Next time you watch, read, or listen to the news, pay attention to who is reported as providing the information. Why is this important? Back in the early days of radio, people that tuned in to listen to the news were alarmed by a broadcast about Martians coming to Earth and wreaking havoc. Turns out, it was Orson Welles reading a radio adaptation of H.G. Welles’ classic War of the Worlds in a news bulletin manner.[i] Was it real? No! Did it affect people’s perception of reality? Yes. Knowing where your news is coming from is important, because the news is only as trustworthy as its source.
There are various examples of people making the “news” their own mouthpiece, be it the Soviets, Maoists, Nazis, Benjamin Franklin, or Yellow Journalism. Sure, many of these sources had real items of news, but they were also open to adding their own optics or outright falsehoods into the system.
The thing is, that most people are not really able to fact check. Sure, if they are directly related to someone in the news story, they can call them up and ask them, but almost everyone else is at the mercy of whomever is reporting the news. Obviously there are fact checkers out there and other people that would like the truth to be correctly reported, thus any news story of import is checked by a variety of people. They communicate with sources, send out their own people to interview witnesses, and even request available information from a variety of record keeping offices. If an item of interest is reported, sources will be checked and that story verified; if there are any sources named.
You see, if there are no sources named, people would question the story. How do we know that the reporter isn’t just making the story up? This is where it gets tricky. We know that not everyone is going to want their name dragged through the mud after it gets in the news. We also know that some people, due to their job, may leak information or otherwise provide information they would be forbidden to because of their job. Sometimes this is self-reporting and biased by the person providing the information, but sometimes it is entirely made up! How exactly are facts going to be checked when “a military general who wishes to remain unnamed for security reasons” or “an aide to the president who wishes to remain anonymous” supposedly stated something? Sure, we can wait around to see if they were right, but here is the kicker, even false information can be “right”.
How could something false turn out to be right? Simple, the fallacy can cause people to act in a manner that makes causes it to become true. This is called a Self-Fulfilling Prophesy. Say it is falsely reported that a country is preparing to invade and is beginning to amass troops along another country’s border. This information goes out and the country that isn’t amassing troops on their neighbor’s border wonders why this false information was published. They start patrolling that border, hoping to find what was reported. They deny the whole thing, but their neighbor sees their patrol vehicles and assuming the report was right, increases border guards. Things quickly escalate so that the original false information proves true.
The problem is that journalists aren’t exactly assumed responsible. Maybe someone gave them false information. They “have to protect their source”. In such a system, there is really no accountability, unless it can be proven that they intentionally reported false information; which is nearly impossible to prove.
The idea of protecting sources and giving journalists free reign is assumed to be a cornerstone of a free society. It is true that it is, as long as it isn’t working to undermine the free society. Next time you are watching the news and no names are mentioned for the sources of the story, ask yourself, “Is this propaganda?”
The danger of suppressing independent thought in our systems of education.
By Reginald Welkin
There is often an assumption that religion was always the persecutor of science and that scientists, no matter the odds, continued to search for truth, passing down what they knew so that other scientists could improve on it. Sure, religion may bring certain bias into science, but this doesn’t mean that science is devoid of bias nor that religious scientists didn’t discover some of the most pivotal ideas that science upholds.
Back in medieval times, pretty much the only ones who could read and write, and thus the only ones that passed down scientific ideas were in the clergy. Sure, monks might work as scribes, doctors, and teachers, but all passed through the Church’s schools, met their rigorous and exacting standards, and were subject to the whims of those clerics of almighty Rome. There were many tradesmen who learned specific trades from father to son or master to apprentice, but few of these deigned to practice outside their craft and cause problems with their guild.
In modern times, you would expect that things have greatly changed. Don’t we revere those with creativity and hold high the banner of freedom of thought? Most young people claim to be independent and think for themselves. But if you look closely, even the most independent person, if not deemed to be in the realm of insanity, looks much like everyone else in their subculture. As Franklin wrote, “Birds of a feather flock together.” Asia has more than one saying about those with independence of thought. One being; “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”
But those in the West brag about how we excel in creativity, are non-conformists, and question tradition. We scoff at those in the East who are unable to improve because they are so bound by tradition that, even when they come up with a great idea, they are afraid to say it, for fear of how others would think of them. Even recently, in regards to the nuclear meltdowns in Fukushima, we hear stories about how employees were afraid to go against their bosses’ orders[i], thus causing a greater disaster. We often think that we are free to think and say what we think without consequences or reprisal. If you believe that way, you are wrong.
Let’s look at our educational system. Have you wondered how it began? We laugh at those that have degrees from Diploma Mills and only Honorary Degrees. They didn’t put in the work, pass the tests or follow the program. Anything they say, no matter how logical, scientific, thoughtful, studied, or true, should not be trusted. Once we are adults and a part of the system, we tend to put more weight in the words of those with higher degrees than those with lower. If a PhD says something, we are more likely to believe it, than when someone with a Master’s degree and a Master’s degree over a Bachelor’s Degree. Thoughts are not judged on their own, but ranked by legitimacy as constructed by the Educational System. People can’t just state they are a graduate and start teaching. People would ask them which school they graduated from, what degree they hold, and in many cases, verify this information. This wasn’t so in the beginning.
Really. The first teachers were those that discovered things on their own and taught them to others. They had no degree and they didn’t attend any school of any kind, let alone higher education. These people were not respected because of what others said about them, but for what they were capable of doing. Of course, knowledge is gained over time, and mistakes have been made. Maybe someone was a good salesman but a terrible doctor. Even though they might not actually have been curing people, they might have been quite successful, and thus had understudies or students learning from them. These in turn, taught others, and while they sometimes improved their knowledge and skills, such a system often has a conservative or traditional bias. If a student wrote a paper in opposition to his professor’s ideas, he might not get a good grade. If he didn’t learn to keep his ideas to himself, he wasn’t likely to graduate. If he did keep his ideas to himself and graduated, he would likely face graduates of the same false ideas working in his profession, managing licensure, in high offices of government and the private sector. Thus, to go too far afield, even when recognized as being a smart enough individual to graduate from a prestigious school, would be putting one’s reputation and livelihood at risk.
Many of us laugh at those that thought the Earth was flat. It seems so ridiculous. We all know that we live on a sphere, spinning in space, rotating around the Sun, swirling in the Milky Way, in a sea of galaxies, in the broad ocean of the Universe, which might just be one of many in the Multi-Verse. But wait! Where did we learn this? Didn’t we learn it from our teachers, who learned it from their teachers, who, at some point, learned it from someone that came up with the idea from their observation? Didn’t those people who thought the Earth was flat learn their knowledge from their teachers as well? Weren’t they taught to not question their teachers as we are taught the same?
We hear of “Settled Science”[ii]. Science is never settled! That is what makes it science. It is something that must continue to be observed and proven correct, or else something has changed and new assumptions are made. Countries are legislating against people that want to teach their children differently than the State. They are taking children away from parents.[iii] They are even going so far as to force medical procedures people’s children[iv], even those the parents believe may not only be unnecessary, but harmful[v]. It has gone beyond coercion, to outright force. Doesn’t this sound a lot like the Church of old, which persecuted people who didn’t comply with its teachings? Is it Science or Religion?
[i] Former Bosses of Fukushima Disaster Nuclear Plant Stand Trial: South China Morning Post (June 30, 2017), Accessed August 13, 2017 from: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/2100717/former-bosses-fukushima-disaster-nuclear-plant-stand-trial
[ii] Kluger, Jeffery. How Climate Deniers Try to Sow Confusion: TIME (April 28, 2016) Accessed August 15, 2017 from: http://time.com/4308518/climate-change-settled-science/
[iii] Wunderlich vs Germany: ADF International (May 5, 2017), Accessed August 15, 2017 from: https://adfinternational.org/detailspages/case-details/wunderlich-v.-germany
[iv] Court Says Ill Child’s Interests Outweigh Religion: New York Times (January 16, 1991), Accessed August 15, 2017 from: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/16/us/court-says-ill-child-s-interests-outweigh-religion.html
[v] Farris, Michael P. Esq. Newborn Seized in Hospital by Police, Social Worker: Home School Legal Defense Association (March 27, 2012), Accessed, August 15, 2017 from: https://www.hslda.org/hs/state/pa/201203270.asp
Vickers, John. The Problem of Inductive Reasoning: Stanford (March 14, 2014) Accessed August 15, 2017 from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
Part 1 in the series Proper Propaganda
Have you ever been charged with a crime and told the arresting officer to “read my book”, “talk to my publicist”, or “listen to my personal address”? Typically, this is only something that those with great power or wealth can do. They aren’t just the news, they make the news.
No self-respecting newsman is going to wait until a court decides its case before reporting on some salacious story. They will interview family, friends, neighbors, enemies, and random people with random opinions to get some sound bites and make it appear that they are providing “the story”. If you are a Regular Joe, it might help if they interview close family and friends, because what is your mother going to say that will make you look bad? Of course, this isn’t the type of opinion that makes good headlines and sells the “news”. It is much more likely that they will find your paranoid neighbor, who never leaves their house, and has never actually spoken to you, but watches suspiciously whenever you take your early morning jog; or maybe they will find your ex, who has an ax to grind and loves to tell stories that are quite far from the truth…and a bit embarrassing. These are the stories that will be all over the news, making headlines, and filling the space between commercial breaks.
Not so, if you are among those that have any real influence. You can have your Press Secretary give out little tidbits about the topic that make you look good, even when you are the guiltiest person there is. Remember, you are probably not in jail, like Average Joes, you haven’t been made to look guilty by being paraded in cuffs from your home, wearing only your pajamas and with your hair messy from sleep, with cameras flashing. People may assume you are guilty, but there is nothing that gives you room to change public opinion than being able to dress your best, be coached by your lawyers and publicists, and give a serious, “honest”, and trustworthy smile and wave before letting your very innocent and honest looking public relations person sway the masses with well-engineered manipulation.
Normal people aren’t allowed to publicly state their side of the story, for fear of biasing the jury. Even in court, they are constrained, and often only able to answer yes and no questions. Any deviation from this is frowned on and may be considered Contempt of Court. On the other hand, if you are truly in a place of influence, every juror in the courtroom will have seen your innocent children and pretty wife or handsome husband pleading for them to see how innocent you truly are. They will have seen a large number of upstanding people of prominence standing before the cameras, vouching for your innocence. They will have been educated to the nuances of law and circumstances that “prove” your innocence. They will have heard your story, and found you innocent, before they can even be selected, let alone sequestered. Whether you are innocent or guilty, if you are using Proper Propaganda, you will tell your story, whether it be true or a pack of lies, because Self-Reporting is the best “reporting”.
Questioning Universal Surveillance
by Reginald Welkin
Imagine someone watching your every move. Like someone following you on your day to day business, looking over your shoulder as you send text messages, leaning in to hear your phone calls, and even following you into the bathroom stall, you are being observed. As you get up, they may watch you get dressed. As you make coffee, they could know about. They have access to your private emails and text messages. They can know when your children are home alone. They can know when you leave for work. Anything you wouldn’t publicly broadcast to the world, whether it is private, embarrassing, worthy of blackmail, or even illegal, they may know about it, have evidence and make use of it.
We live in a world where we are under almost constant surveillance. Much of what we do is recorded and cataloged. Satellites, security cameras, credit histories, social media, public records, internet activity, phone calls, text messages, emails, financial transactions, and a host of other data and metadata are collected by both public and private entities in the effort to determine what type of people we are for purposes of sales, ID theft, logistics, and intelligence gathering.
It used to be that the FBI, Secret Service, and State and Local Law Enforcement were the only ones really watching us. Now, large companies like Google, know more about us than any local police department does. Back in 2000, people were worried about Carnivore, one of the FBI’s earlier programs for mass surveillance. After September 11, 2001, the crisis was used to implement plans made long earlier to really expand domestic surveillance. Carnivore which was renamed, after people heard about it and to obscure its true nature, was abandoned and more sophisticated software began to be used. The Patriot Act, the FISA Amendment Act, and several other acts began to push more domestic surveillance. The NSA has programs like Eschelon and just finished a huge data center in Utah, specifically built to take a peek into your private life.
Private corporations and our government are working hand in hand to know more and more about us. The information they can’t directly gather, they can see from Meta Data. An example would be gathering data from a home’s Smart Meter, to see what they were doing in their house, based on power usage. They can tell when you are home, if you are washing clothes, turning on lights, printing something, or watching TV, all from data collected from power usage. Even when power usage isn’t collected from individual houses, but by groups of houses, they can compare various other data, like emailed work schedules, credit card uses, and other things to see who is home and who is elsewhere then extrapolate this data and isolate various house’s machines from that data.
It is a strange new world. Those that want to, can monitor your phone calls as well as use your phone as a bug, even when it is “turned off”. Web cams and smart phone cameras can be watching you without your even knowing it. There really is no guarantee of privacy without going dark.
So why should one really care about privacy? The government doesn’t care about you as long as you are not a criminal and large companies only want to sell to you, if they used your data for other purposes, they would face criminal charges and lawsuits. Look back at your life, and think about someone, not just anyone, but a stranger, watching you at all times. Would you feel comfortable about that? Why not? Do you have something to hide?
The government and private corporations are not some inhuman entity that acts as expected and only has their corporate goals in mind. All sorts of people are employed by these entities. It would be like if your ex worked for the FBI, and decided to wiretap your house. Maybe an active pedophile works for your electric company and knows when your children are left unattended. Maybe you do things in your private life that are embarrassing. Say you are just about to run for office and you are approached by someone that wants you to do something for them. They have private messages and maybe video of things you don’t want others to know about. But this is extreme. Let’s say everyone in government and at places like Google only look at your data when absolutely necessary and don’t watch you from the camera on your phone, your wifi security cameras, or your laptop’s webcam. Let’s say they only look at your private text messages when they are flagged for suspicious content and are between you and someone in a country at war with us. Okay, now you should rest easy, not be concerned, and feel that your private life is intact. Or is it?
Maybe you are aware that data breaches occur all the time. Even some of the most secret military files end up being stolen. Secure servers are not really that secure. When breaches occur, it isn’t just one or two passwords that are at risk, but millions. Whatever data the government and large corporations are storing, is at risk of being stolen. Oddly enough, while government may be concerned about their own privacy, they apparently weren’t or aren’t as worried about yours. They only decided to start using HTTPS (A secure, encrypted data internet transfer protocol.) more universally in 2015.
As for private companies, they not only have a profit motive, but this leads them to do anything to stay in business. As with all businesses that stay in business during political change, companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube also work with governments to control information as well as spy on you. Large companies have had many more reported data breaches than government servers. Some supposedly had the servers that were so secure, there was no way anyone could access the information on them, even if they had taken drives from them. This was the supposed security of The Cloud, a storage system that breaks data down in a RAID like fashion, so that not only is it spread over various encrypted servers, but replicated to prevent data loss. The Cloud was stored on huge server farms owned by companies like Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft. Not so surprisingly, this was compromised and some very private things were published for all the world to see.
Then again, maybe you don’t mind voyeurs watching you all the time, don’t have anything worth stealing, and are doing nothing illegal behind closed doors. You have nothing to hide. What then? Why not share all with the world? Throughout history, privacy has been the keystone of liberty. All pushes for freedom relied heavily on secrecy. They didn’t tell their oppressors what they were planning and every action they took, for to do so would have meant their failure. When your life is constantly monitored, you do not have the opportunity to have true freedom.
If we should leave our lives open to government surveillance, why is it that we aren’t allowed full access to our government’s official actions and even their own personal lives? They value privacy for themselves, if not, they would build glass houses, because they have nothing to hide.
The Law-Abiding Citizen
and His Failure to Society
by Reginald Welkin
This phrase, I’m a Law-Abiding Citizen, is often heard among those that believe they follow the laws and thus are due better treatment from their government. At first glance, it would seem that those that follow the law should be considered model citizens and thought of as helpful for that society, and perhaps they are. For what other type of person do these ideals contrast with, but those that are law-breakers, rebels, anti-social, and dangerous? Isn’t it good for society to have more people that can be described as law abiding?
As children, we played games like “Red Light Green Light” and throughout school, there were various rules that had to be kept or punishment would follow, even if they didn’t make sense, or the rules weren’t even posted. Our whole society is based on the premise that those that break the rules are immoral or unethical and that many of the punishments that occur to innocent people, are really meant to punish the guilty.
Corporate punishment was instilled in each of us as we grew up. We could be minding our own business and not even be aware of something that happened, and face general punishment until the perpetrator was punished. Maybe you recall some student writing on the wall or stealing another child’s toy. The whole classroom would face punishment until someone ratted out that child. All students would want to find the person that was making their lives miserable. This would seem strange, if not purely evil, if it was executed on the general populace, as it was in schools and other areas of child care. Of course, it has. There are many examples throughout history where people have been summarily punished for the actions of others. Whole towns have been rounded up and executed because of a few in that town that were acting against the government.
Of course, we don’t live under such a government. Maybe our children grow up under Draconian ideas of rule-keeping, but this is necessary for their development and they grow out of this mindset as they reach adulthood. Our government doesn’t punish everyone for the acts of a few…or does it? Under the premise that evil doesn’t just show up in all its evil glory, for fear of being resisted, but in with subtlety, like that story about how to boil a live frog, we should take a closer look at one of the things that we all seem to believe to be slightly onerous, but necessary.
The rules say that there is a maximum speed, over which, you are breaking the law. This is the “Maximum Speed Limit”, thus one would assume driving less than that speed would be legal. No, they also have written that people must drive at “the speed of traffic”, which means that driving slower, is illegal, if traffic is moving faster; even if traffic is all moving faster than the maximum speed limit! There is no posted range of acceptable speeds to drive. It is all at the whim of the officer that pulls you over.
But this is all about safety, if people are driving too fast, they will end up killing people. Isn’t that why they are enforced? Several years ago, some channel was broadcasting the proceedings of a Star County, Texas, meeting. The county leaders were going over their budget and noticed that their traffic enforcement was not getting enough in revenues from traffic violations. Their budget was short by a few thousand dollars. This was one way their county made money and it relied on this money to continue offering its “services”; including stopping people for traffic infractions. This county didn’t have enough money because its citizens were “law-abiding”.
There is a difference between being good and being obedient. This is where the whole law-abiding citizen ideal breaks down. Each citizen has the responsibility to determine if the laws they are told to keep are merely “lawful” or if they are “right”. Our country was founded on the idea that bad laws were to be broken. The most terrible times in history were caused by people “just following orders”, “just doing my job”, or “obeying the law”. As Kohlberg shows in his Theory of Moral Development, there are multiple levels of moral thought.
6. Universal Ethical Principle
C. Post-Conventional 5. Social Contract
4. Law & Order
B. Conventional 3. Good Boy & Good Girl
2. Individualism & Exchange
A. Pre-Moral 1. Obedience vs Punishment
Oddly enough, most of government relies on lower levels of moral reasoning for its existence. You do things because to do otherwise would mean punishment. Maybe you do things, because it is necessary to maintain law and order or to “keep the peace”. Taking actions or responding in a manner not deemed appropriate, can lead to breaking the law and becoming a criminal.
People don’t really believe that most laws actually make for a better country. If this were the case, they would be happy with more officers on the road, pulling speeders over. They would actually drive the speed limit, rather than driving over the speed limit, then slowing down when a law-enforcement car is spotted. They wouldn’t be happy with such heinous crimes as endangering others by going over an arbitrary and ambiguously moving line in the blowing sand being only punished with a payoff. They would want severe punishments that prevent these dangerous people from repeating this crime. They would want the rules to be solid and exact. They would want to actually know and understand the ever growing multitude of laws and regulations so that they could actually become the impossible, a Law-Abiding Citizen.
Helping, Hindering, or Hurting and the Concept of Entitlement
By Reginald Welkin
Writes about politics from a Conservative Libertarian viewpoint. While pushing for a government that is Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal, he personally appreciates the Socially Conservative lifestyle.
Copyright R. A. Welkin