Liberty Shield is a fully logical exploration based upon my meticulously grounded logical analysis (over the past several years) of liberty and law. This exploration is fully based upon strictest application of the scientific method (as distinct from scientific conclusions, which may be untrue) inclusively against my subjectivity as may be needed.
Results of that analysis conclude society inevitably has a deeply serious problem requiring maturely prompt remedy, but an overwhelming majority of society powerfully presses instead to unfortunately exacerbate that problem typically apparently by simply ignoring the fundamentally valid points logically expressed herein. Swimming against a sufficiently powerful riptide leads to drowning, so my goal here is not to “swim” against that societal majority’s very powerful “riptide”, but to (sometimes unavoidably passionately) entertain and socialize about those completely logical results to hopefully casually ripple towards open minds for generating reasonable continuance of any societal value provided by Liberty Shield.
Subjectively defined law (basically in its current wild form) is unjust law due to (at least historically demonstrable) unfairness from the conflict of interest known as favoritism against public safety. Overwhelmingly dominant subjective influence determines harm (and consequently risk), so inextricably liberty (and consequently law). Instead of a justice system, the net result is an agenda system, which functions to allow powerful human forces battle it out to (sometimes brutally and/or severely) mold law to their (sometimes selfish) preference, while leaving any abusive legal results to (perhaps deeply and/or widely) extend in the form of legal precedence. As with any competitive situation, sometimes the righteous underdog wins, but typically not.
Liberty Shield often expresses a national focus herein the United States of America, but any of you outside of that national context should obviously logically feel free to connect Liberty Shield conclusions with your national sovereignty as needed for justice. In other words, Liberty Shield focuses upon the farthest reach of liberty relevance through mainly a national demonstration these days.
Nationally speaking, the undeniable result (after two centuries and counting) is a severely tortured rule-of-law where inconsistency (in the form of favoritism) runs rampant against the credibility of that law. To the extent the rule-of-law is discredited is naturally the extent society governed by that law becomes destabilized, so this is a terribly serious problem (affecting powerful through powerless people) that remains essentially publicly ignored.
We know objectivity is realistic, because technology dependent upon objectivity exists.
Language is the sole ingredient of law (including its intent and interpretation), and objectivity in language is possible by solely leveraging certainties.
Liberty Shield is an entertainment (including educational) ecosystem meticulously designed to explore the strict application of certainties to improve any area of law — and naturally contributes towards improving language itself against misunderstanding.
That means solely embracing the ultimately uncorruptly and extremely logical power of the scientific method to honestly apply the same principles to a just rule-of-law that have been applied to technology — which is rapidly advancing due to experimental science, while law demonstrably fails to equally advance.
For clarification, the perfect metaphor is a house.
A house made of mud has serious problems, which includes the constant need for “mudhomeowners” to slap more mud to preserve utility, and the inability of a mud house to survive sufficiently sharp events (e.g. earthquakes).
With advancements in technology, though not impervious, houses are quite structurally sound and resilient (with much promise for future advancements).
With the wildly subjectively defined rule-of-law, however, humanity remains unfortunately metaphorically stuck in the mud and building a house out of that mud, because conflicts of interest effectively determining law form the poor consistency of mud relative to the righteous need for properly strong judicial constructs.
At least in the name of civility, strict adherence to the maximum objective threshold necessarily crossed for judicial application maximally prevents those conflicts from reaching the highly destructive state of abusive law.
Law abuse is the worst form of abuse due at least to its mainly broad scope of destruction, logically speaking, so must be the form of abuse primarily addressed by a civilized society.
Note that each section below has a link under its header to facilitate sharing Liberty Shield roots.
Interestingly and fittingly, the revolutionary spirit forming our nation (against law abuse, as clearly expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence) already tried to start our nation down this logically lawful road, so relying upon unalienable rights and a supremely lawful Constitution reasonably carefully designed against abusive leadership.
That effort (including details of that fundamental legality raised by my personal founding father spending decades of his life as a civil attorney) is also largely responsible for the establishment of Liberty Shield.
The American Revolution against the British military indeed ended long ago, relatively speaking, but the revolution against law abuse must naturally continue (for logical consistency) in part against the national application of British common law that conflicts with the extremely progressive nature of an actually unalienable right to liberty — that actuality a fundamentally logical necessity to prevent law abuse before it powerfully violates public safety.
Upon popularly desiring the comforts of the crowd, people feel free to continue favoring wildly subjectively defined law (basically powerfully sold to the public by means of promoting equality and/or morality) and the broadly unhealthily stressful results inundating within society to increasing degrees of detriment (think slippery slope).
Based upon historical patterns, only a matter of time remains until law abuse powerfully presses upon you (and your loved ones, if applicable), and it would not be surprising upon learning such unhealthy pressure already being applied in the form of wildly excessive taxation and regulatory pressures intended (but basically demonstrably failing) to substantially prevent private sector abuse, because powerful people in the private sector (apparently at least typically) have the means to bypass those pressures — often, if not always, in cahoots with leaders of the public sector to naturally form the oligarchy effectively governing and dominating at least national society.
That oligarchy is a subjectively defined environment of power where friends and enemies come and go in any of the many forms during varying degrees (including furious ones — think microcosm of energy tumultuously on par with the center of this galaxy) to achieve and sustain power for themselves (perhaps even with honestly good folks trying to leverage that power to make things right amid that turmoil for society).
Progressive is defined as “favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters” (noting that also contains the definition of liberal).
Despite the unfortunately overwhelming consensus to the contrary, current pressures to empower the public sector against private sector abuse are ironically unprogressive.
Intentionally (or otherwise) exploiting youth by persuading them with (at best) superficial partial truths (too often overwhelmingly pressing upon their youthful energy to naturally passionately negate composure necessary for optimal intellectual exercise) and styling expressions often imbued with popular youthful cultural references to form the illusion of progressivism (while passionately and youthfully promoting the same tired and demonstrably failed approach spanning many — if not all — generations) is equal to putting lipstick on a pig (facetiously yet honestly noting I have nothing against pigs); the pig remains a pig regardless of any makeup being applied.
That standard (so unprogressive) approach is fundamentally logically flawed by always insisting upon empowering the public sector to the seriously powerful degree necessary to oppose powerful private sector operatives, but instead historically and currently leaving that power to form an alternative elitist class — merely an oligarchical shift — with all of the same problems (favoritism against public safety) prompting that empowerment.
True progressivism/liberalism is covered within Liberty Shield, and as you will read herein, the result logically matches the honest and positive intentions of the political left. That includes always being committed to maximum equality, and encouraging maximum education and science for the benefit of humanity and any species impacted by our existence.
Swinging the political pendulum to the right, despite the apparently total neglect of this key point, there is basically a clear distinction between American conservatism and pre-American conservatism.
The latter overwhelmingly dominates American society historically through the time of last updating this section in 2017 (that dominance entrenched within at least both major political parties).
An unalienable right to liberty, which must be fundamentally purely applied to be effective due to “slippery slope” problems otherwise (like preventing a small leak ultimately sinking the ‘national ship’), is purely American conservative.
However, that right remains anti-pre-American-conservative, because that right by necessity prevents the application of liberty-infringing law purely from subjectively encouraged public pressures (e.g. Alcohol Prohibition).
Liberty Shield offers you the opportunity to not only be a true progressive/liberal, but also a true American conservative without hypocrisy.
Broadly destructive favoritism against many innocent individuals is obviously immoral (i.e. such unfairness cannot be righteous by any uncorrupted measure), which means the only right public choice is a truly maximum effort towards purely conclusively objective (i.e. fair, so just) law.
Liberty Shield logically matches the positive and honest intentions of the political right. That includes a perpetual commitment to maximum morality and upholding justifiable constitutional law.
Finally (though other political ideologies may also be covered), due to purely accepting only a completely strict application of the scientific method, Liberty Shield brings undeniable reality to libertarians at times criticized as unrealistic.
Repeating for critical clarity, the essence of Liberty Shield is strictest application of the scientific method to form conclusively objective results.
No suggestive science qualifies for liberty-infringing law (no exceptions, including any proclaimed as necessary to protect the children), because the misfitting consistency of mud becomes unhealthily again applicable — science suggests “x” is good or bad, depending upon your “scientific” leaning (e.g. cannabis, chocolate, coffee, football, hockey, and so on).
Moreover, any leveraging of scientists’ partial consensus as being on par with full application of the scientific method is unethical.
Words fail to describe the wrongful nature of any degree of compromising the only method proven to better tune our species with reality as verified by technology and other purely scientific predictions coming to pass (e.g. when a familiar comet will next become visible from Earth).
The whole point of the scientific method is to better understand reality by experimentally proven facts (purely 100% consensus), so any objective possibility against any consensus (even regardless of dominating scientific credentials forming that consensus) must remain scientifically valid without exception.
Even organized religions rely upon the scientific method to build and sustain houses of worship, printing materials (computer based or not) to spread beliefs, clothing basically insisted upon as a key ingredient for religious positivity, technological transportation facilitating activities involving those beliefs, and unfortunately (but brutally honestly) whatever infusion of technologically enhanced military and/or law enforcement might necessary to sustain their demonstrably subjective beliefs (including the blades brutally sawing off heads of subjectively proclaimed infidels).
If you understand the piece titled “Is English Changing?” provided by the Linguistic Society of America, then you are rewarded with a solid sense regarding the evolution of language.
Science involving language evolution has been about studying the natural course of that evolution, but not about actively shaping language by way of forming more certainties for clarity.
There is nothing wrong with the natural shaping of language, but more objectivity in language is needed for the sake of justifiable law.
Liberty Shield firmly advocates leveraging the scientific method to help actively evolve language, but logic dictates that serious limits to that scientific pressure must be embraced without exception.
Without similarly serious limits in computer technology, for solid example, there is a rapid and complex computer technological evolution (and ample unhealthy stress riskily, if not dangerously, against society as a result) — basically metaphorically think runaway train combined with limitless imagination to form serious global impact with many distortions confusing too many people relying upon that technology.
Because everyone obviously basically needs to be on the same page with respect to worded language for effective communication throughout humanity, serious limits must be applied to greatly restrict the number of language updates for any given set of living generations for the sake of that manageability — so focusing upon achieving only the highest quality of those occasional updates is paramount.
Beyond the carefully scientifically defined limits of publicly formally accepted language updates still righteously exists a free world of language exploration and experimentation based upon current processes of linguistics. There may be (if not likely will be) a massive pool of scientifically proposed language updates (including many debates over their validity).
Ultimately, society through natural language evolution (logically powerfully influenced by language teachers) effectively democratically chooses from those proposals, so the updates cannot be enforced by law (or such) — but by purely constructive and constant persuasion primarily by responsible entertainers (i.e. educators understanding the need for entertainment for interest in learning).
In addition to the following necessarily absolute definition of liberty, fundamentally proposed certainties in the Liberty Shield context include setting a hard-line distinction between use and abuse.
Use can only be a harmless act, while abuse can only be a harmful act.
Saying “substance use disorder” (or such) would no longer be valid, and the word “misuse” (a redundancy of abuse) would become discouraged and deprecated. That is necessary to simply quickly communicate the undeniably critical distinction of harm.
Without a clear definition of harm, there can be no clear definition of liberty.
There clearly is an unclear definition of harm (at least during the last update of this section), so that lacking clarity must be most promptly remedied for the sake of optimally civilized liberty.
At least according to mainstream physics, reality is purely energetic. Since energy modulation is never ultimately harmful in any objective sense (e.g. one law of physics states energy cannot be created nor destroyed), harm can only be maximally objectively defined.
As basically already stated, but worth repeating for emphasis, suggestive/pseudo/junk science is dangerously inappropriate against that maximum press towards objectivity.
Only conclusively proven harm via pseudo-objectivity that is literally equal to pure agreement by all purely honest human beings (e.g. murder) qualifies as truly harmful in any objective (so just) sense.
Understanding the physicality of harm (inclusively as distinct from subjective sensitivity) against any human being’s health is critical for our species’ survival and “thrival”.
Objectively defined law (or oblaw for simpler communication) starts with the critical unalienable right to liberty.
Liberty itself is a certainty when defined as the condition of being free from restriction or control. While we can (and often will) examine the vastly complex realization of that certainty towards civility, that certainty suffices as a functional part for fundamental use in oblaw.
Properties of liberty, as defined in our national Declaration of Independence, include self-evident and unalienable. Objectively speaking, self-evidence and ‘Creator given’ are effectively the same property — the right is automatically granted.
Only for the sake of this writing combined with brevity (and logically modern sensibility), controversial usage of the words “men” (as in “all men are created equal”) and “Creator” (as in “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”) in terms of historically claimed justifications for gender and religious discrimination to form the nationally (l)awfully discriminatory definition of liberty remain absent in terms of details herein — but not ignored in the overall Liberty Shield scope, where both of those discriminatory stances are boldly logically refuted.
Feel free to limit liberty strictly within your religious context, for topnotch example, but under no just circumstance can anyone lawfully leverage that context against non-believers of that religion for whom that right equally applies.
To clarify by some redundancy and a bit more depth, “We hold these truths to be self-evident” begins the most famous passage in the most famous declaration in American history. Those truths include the right to liberty, and self-evidence is a certainty suitable for oblaw. Returning to “endowed by their Creator”, we again reinforce the self-evidence property of liberty equal to naturally given, and remove any possible religious discrimination against objectivity and consequently justice (casually noting that Thomas Jefferson in the preceding paragraph therein authored “Nature’s God” instead of simply God). That famous passage eventually reaches “certain unalienable rights”. The word unalienable means ‘cannot be taken away’, so we have another certainty suitable for oblaw.
After assembling those oblaw parts, the irrefutable logic dictates that you can do whatever you want, while never infringing upon that right — i.e. liberty is limited only by the right itself with no possible exception.
For distinction from the common usage of the term liberty, I call the liberty oblaw construct balanced liberty (or blib for simpler communication), and it literally is the most brilliant social construct ever possible, logically speaking.
The reason for that boldest of claims is the fact that liberty defines what you can do with your life, and when the only limit against your liberty is the right itself, we have optimal liberty in a civilized society — nonetheless the construct is easily understood and quickly expressed by basically anyone needing to leverage rights protection — critically including the righteously powerless against an abusive oligarchy.
That leverage must be maximally reinforced by the publicly understood need for oblaw, so (repeating for key emphasis) harm must be maximally objectively defined — an objective definition perpetually refined similar to advancing technology upon new discoveries.
When harm becomes maximally objectively defined, and publicly accepted as necessary against the typical stigmas popularly formed by abusive reasoning to the ironic detriment of society, then even the “weakest” person can most powerfully simply refute any popularly unethically powerful leverage for persecuting law against them by simply stating no objective evidence conclusively proves harm purportedly justifying that law in their case, so that law remains unjust and therefore unlawful in any actual justice system.
That just stance needs to be understandably respectfully backed by the dominating public capable of sufficiently organizing (with awareness-raising conducted through a system of secure, completely honest, and popular information feeds) to then dominate any oligarchy continuing that persecuting path in the true highest court of the land — the court of public opinion.
You cannot ask for a better focal point (or dominant guide, if you prefer) for society, and it all boils down to a compact and objectively defined legal construct (a lawful seed ready for planting to form the tree of purely just law) already reasonably excellently defined in our nation’s foundation as a national obligation.
Had blib been consistently logically (so lawfully) realized upon establishment against pre-American conservatism…
- slavery (and judicially approved racism overall) would have necessarily instantly ended by law (and as a fitting aside, anyone believing skin color determines competency, social value, and/or such, would be righteously diagnosed as mentally ill).
- women would have been necessarily instantly granted equal rights by law (feel free to fittingly add a similar mental illness diagnosis with regards to gender superiority and remaining items in this list).
- there could never be any just law discriminating against people due to their sexual orientation (or discrimination on the basis of marriage against single people regardless of sexual preference — e.g. any tax law unfairly benefiting married couples).
- selectively opposing certain drug users would never have been lawfully allowed (including Alcohol Prohibition).
- there could be no just law against any form of fully adult-consensual sex (including that requiring a financial component).
- no reverse discrimination could be lawfully possible.
Blib is an objective (so just) grounding for social equality remaining strictly fit within our national constitutional context and modern sensibility, while purely subjectively defined morality (and the recklessly formed stigmas ignited by irrationality for widespread harm) to the contrary be justly — so morally for everyone, not ironically immorally for some dominating group therein — condemned.
People familiar with American law may note that rights defined in our national Declaration of Independence cannot directly be considered lawful — i.e. our judicial branch must solely interpret our Constitution, so never our most famous declaration.
However, amendment nine clearly states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Since there has never been any rights formally documented and established outside of the Constitution aside from those defined in our most famous declaration, logic undeniably dictates that amendment nine in the Bill of Rights can only serve one purpose — judicially recognize our fundamental rights expressed in that declaration.
Basically nobody talks about that most powerful catchall amendment (i.e. monstrously huge “elephant in the room” being ignored), because it was judicially disarmed long ago for much broader and deeper oligarchical power for dominant self-interest groups.
The following excerpts from the Wikipedia entry for the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution reinforce that disarmament claim.
“One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication.”
“Like Alexander Hamilton, Madison was concerned that enumerating various rights could ‘enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution.'”
“It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights….that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.” [emphasis not mine]
“The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the Ninth Amendment addresses a ‘great residuum’ of rights that have not been ‘thrown into the hands of the government,’ as Madison put it.”
“The Ninth Amendment has generally been regarded by the courts as negating any expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution, but the Amendment has not been regarded as further limiting governmental power.”
“The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.”
“The Declaration of Independence…is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”
That last quote (made by a Supreme Court Justice) nails that disarmament.
What case can possibly be won by citing the ninth amendment, while considering that most modern “interpretation” judicially negating our fundamental rights?
That last formally judicial quote says “the people” can infringe upon the “truths to be held self-evident” (e.g. unalienable right to liberty) simply by “duly enacted” law. If the law infringes upon unalienable rights naturally granted, then how can it possibly be duly enacted?
It does not take a genius to clearly see the fundamental national conflict against everything our nation was supposed to be built upon to prevent law abuse upfront.
The enormous judicial result literally demonstrably has ruined millions (if not billions) of non-violent lives to varying degrees over our nation’s entire duration with the situation exacerbating (at least in 2016 when this section was last updated) — undeniably in “smoking gun” (actually “smoking national nuclear fallout”) form confirming that “duly enacted” mass rights infringement effectively with pure (and journalistically unethical) mainstream media consent.
There is no way such blatantly gross mass rights infringement is anything but highly newsworthy by any sane regard for the “public’s right to know” until that infringement is properly publicly addressed by actually duly enacted constitutional law in the “land of the free”.
If our fundamental rights have no judicial leverage, then no point exists in having fundamental rights.
Dominating favoritism — including mass manipulation repeatedly proven unbearably simple to achieve via the Big Lie technique (and/or such) horribly against public safety to the most serious degree at which pure democracies are well understood for hundreds of years to be severely dangerous against public safety, so leaving us instead with a constitutional republic — will always trump those rights.
Despite the ninth amendment, rights are largely (if not solely) defined by constitutional enumeration (and even that enumeration is too often insufficient towards rights protection).
Violent media and pornography proponents have withstood constant judicial assault, because of the first enumerated right (the one for free speech). However, “curse words” are still illegal in public broadcasts (because they are dangerous, subjectively speaking).
Gun owners also receive reasonably continuous judicial regulatory pressure to (at least supposedly) oppose gun abuse, but largely prevail due to the second enumerated right (obviously the one to bear arms).
Critically note that any judicial regulation is a euphemism for prohibition.
Any regulation automatically prohibits some activity.
Prohibition as a policy measure can (and sometimes popularly does) sound inappropriately extreme, and is at least highly questionable (if not outright unproven) in terms of effectiveness at usually a serious cost against taxpayer resources and liberty, so vulnerable to dominantly powerful public criticism against beneficiaries of that prohibition.
However, successfully publicly arguing against the responsible presentation and judicial application of strengthening regularity (equality) as part of law and order within society is challenging (if even possible), so effectively unethically bypasses that similarly highly questionable (if not outright unproven) effectiveness and serious cost concern by an unfortunately dominating public preference (as usually reinforced by beneficiaries of that regulation) for the merely superficially positive sensation that comes from actually cheaply applying law in that hideous manner (based upon the whole truth and nothing but).
Returning to the point regarding enumerated rights, merely holding a certain plant (cannabis — the scientific term for marijuana, if unclear) in your American hand, however, is not protected by any enumerated constitutional right (other than the ninth one, logically speaking), so consequently has been (along with certain other drugs) isolated for mass liberty infringement (i.e. severe law abuse) to politically (not scientifically conclusively) and demonstrably ineffectively target certain drug use for several decades and strongly counting in the “land of the free” (at least within 2016 when this section was last updated).
The tenth amendment (i.e. “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.”) implicitly shines a bright light on the fundamental problem here.
A right without the power to exercise that right is not really a right.
If you do not have the power to exercise the fundamental and unalienable right to liberty, for prime example, then you do not have that nationally obligatory right.
Our government logically can have no power to infringe upon unalienable rights, but they clearly and constantly do anyway (worse with “slippery slope” legal precedence) as a bold insult against “We the people” who excessively pathetically refuse to maturely unite and patriotically fix that obviously critical problem of rights versus powers (i.e. uncertainty in language) by pressing back responsibly firmly against that government-sanctioned crime literally against all of our national citizens.
As our nation was formed against law abuse (to whatever careful extent then possible against entrenched pre-American conservatism spanning the entire political spectrum), flawless sense concludes our Constitution serves (by way of implicitly limiting government power) to prevent abusive leadership.
However, that abuse has unfortunately merely shifted to exist within the subjective interpretation of our Constitution, so essentially negating the point of even having a Constitution to instead simply leverage one or more vague clauses to defy any absolute limit of power necessary to prevent law abuse.
After over two hundred years of that negation (and exacerbatingly dangerously counting), anyone believing our Constitution is truly the self-proclaimed “supreme law of the land” strictly limiting power (at the federal, state, and local levels — the latter two levels due to the Supremacy Clause) is being naive.
That problem is horrible to the point encouraging way too many people (even self-proclaimed constitutional experts) to believe our Constitution is a “living document” (reinforcing the highly — if not completely — politicized restructuring of law on the oceanic, so essentially — if not completely — chaotic, fly) — when (in fact) the constitutional amendment process crushes that “living document” belief purely into the realm of baseless.
In other words, if our Constitution is a “living document”, why bother having a formal constitutional amendment process (especially one rendering the amending of our Constitution as intentionally seriously challenging)?
While there are constitutional protections being sometimes upheld, ultimately dominant forces in the effectively governing oligarchy are doing whatever they want for themselves, while being limited only by shifting dominating currents therein (sometimes including dominantly leveraging our Constitution).
American society remains horribly vulnerable to the serious danger from destabilization due to those unpredictable currents (i.e. the powerful absence of fairness for likely selfish reasons against public safety — including against a more perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and general welfare).
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” — United States Constitution (Preamble)
Certain Drug Prohibition
Due to my substantial and continuously updated familiarity with the issue, the consistency the issue has within the All Sines mindset (allsines.life), and the issue’s prime exemplification of the aforementioned problem, the war on [some] drugs (a.k.a. Certain Drug Prohibition, as basically grounded in the Controlled Substances Act federally, and rippling out to inclusively apply law at the state and local levels) is our prime example in the Liberty Shield scope for the duration of applicability.
Alcohol Prohibition exists within our Constitution in the form of two amendments — one starting that prohibition, and another one ending it for (at least) comparable reasons that logically should have prevented Certain Drug Prohibition from even happening. Those reasons include…
- a horribly destructive and terribly powerful set of black market influences.
- weakly suggestive (if not junk) science unethically forming tough affirmations by community leaders, so publicly dominant stigmas conclusively harmfully affecting the lives of many people harmlessly consuming certain drugs (based upon the absence of conclusive science proving any harm in moderate use in those cases).
- the inability to prove any drug abuse reduction by any concrete (so reasonably credible) measure including the absence of even an illicit-drug-free prison system.
- seriously heavy taxpayer expense (billions of dollars spent annually).
- law enforcement resources dedicated to non-violent and illicit drug users remaining obviously unavailable against actually rights-infringing criminals — murderers, rapists, thieves, and so on — continuing to press hard against public safety.
- and sadly too much more pressing hard against brevity here.
As a quick-but-important sidenote (and clarification of the aforementioned Alcohol Prohibition example), in compliance with an unalienable right to liberty, nobody (not even the public majority backed by public servant majority) ever justly had legal authority to effectively (or actually) take a glass of wine out of the hands of someone harmlessly enjoying it with their meal. In other words, amendment nine should have logically kicked in to prevent Alcohol Prohibition.
By the way (although it should go without saying), critically note that for sanity to prevail, our Constitution can never be amended in any way that logically conflicts with itself. All such constitutional conflicts must form the immediate publicly promoted basis to firmly encourage whatever number of oblaw-based constitutional amendments necessary to properly resolve those conflicts (perhaps including an ironic adjustment of Article Five — the constitutional amendment process description itself) — regardless of the enormous challenge legitimately necessarily met to achieve even one constitutional amendment.
Reefer madness has demonstrably been law madness (from reason madness) the entire time (and still is within 2016 when this section was last updated).
People “benefiting” from serious financial and other powerful rewards to sustain Certain Drug Prohibition suffer from an ironic drug prohibition addiction causing monstrous societal damage.
Similar to anyone dangerously suffering from drug (food, sex, and so on) addiction, drug prohibition addicts truly benefit from a prompt, mature, and sufficiently powerful public intervention to put a firm stop to their obviously desperate attempt to get their prohibition fix.
That includes annually effectively stealing many billions of dollars from taxpayers by clearly lying to them at least by deceptively swapping use and abuse to their demonizing convenience — again for key emphasis, including unethically turning weak/junk science into tough-talking affirmations — so precisely the macrocosm of the stereotypical heroin (meth, and so on) addict stealing and lying to get their fix.
Drug prohibition addiction is part of the severely publicly dangerous (albeit tragically popular) case of hypocrisy (reason abuse) addiction combined with thuggery addiction in the “land of the free”.
Without a federal constitutional amendment to support Certain Drug Prohibition, our judicial branch decided to instead apply the 16 words forming the Commerce Clause (i.e. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”) as the sole constitutional basis for the sequel to Alcohol Prohibition.
The following lists relevant points quoted from the Wikipedia entry for the Commerce Clause to confirm extremely serious judicial subjectivity, so demonstrates consequently jarring shifts in law that relatively quickly degrade constitutional protections set against law abuse.
“Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause.”
“…the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the Supreme Court’s interpretation.”
“During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited.”
“Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, Congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade or any other form of restricted area (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).”
“The outer limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause power has been the subject of long, intense political controversy.”
“As explained in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), ‘For nearly a century thereafter (that is, after Gibbons), the Court’s Commerce Clause decisions dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress’ power, and almost entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce. Under this line of precedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as ‘production’, ‘manufacturing’, and ‘mining’ were within the province of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”
Moreover, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opened his dissent in the case of Gonzales v. Raich by stating:
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
Let us add all applicable definitions of the word commerce, as stated at dictionary.com:
“1. an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce) trade; business. 2. social relations, especially the exchange of views, attitudes, etc. 3. sexual intercourse. 4. intellectual or spiritual interchange; communion.”
The bottom line is commerce is not a certainty (to put it mildly). To regulate commerce can logically mean (at least essentially) anything, at least based upon those dictionary definitions.
The demonstrable result is a nationally dangerous set of (generally politically motivated) shifts in judicial application exemplifying the aforementioned “mud house” metaphor to the obvious discredit against the rule-of-law.
Those shifts (metaphorically equal to shaking a house made of mud) are obviously dumb, so when that shaking metaphorically occurs at the grandest national level against the rule-of-law (therefore inextricably against national society), serious public concern against that shaking should powerfully press upon national society to properly courageously end that dumbness literally directly threatening our national infrastructure.
Instead, “We the people” have an effectively silent public response simmering along (I assume at least largely unintentionally) apathetically for several decades and counting — apparently like a deer trapped by the gaze into oncoming headlights, or by yet again falling for the Big Lie propaganda to ridiculously (but popularly) scoff at the fully logically proclaimed metaphorical (and vastly more destructive than even the literal form of dangerous) hurricane about to heavily again impress its violent rage upon national land and sentiment — e.g. yet another horribly bloody revolution ignited by the oppressed and fed up masses agonizingly suffering from abusive favoritism severely against public safety.
The Commerce Clause situation has become problematic to literally the utmost degree.
By some ‘judicial legislation’ (i.e. blatantly illegal redefining of constitutional meaning by simply redefining that clause in legal precedence), the Supreme Court’s judicial attitude these days presses upon allowing Congress to regulate any activity rationally having a substantial effect on commerce (not just “To regulate Commerce”, as our Constitution clearly states).
That vagueness is nothing shy of being literally utterly disastrous against freedom within American society (including ironically logically far more harmful than all drug abuse combined).
Your thought activity, my fellow Americans, which literally determines all of your buying and selling decisions always rationally has a substantial effect on commerce.
In other words, if merely holding a certain plant in your American hand has a substantial effect on commerce (which our judicial branch has publicly ruled in the affirmative multiple times), then under no sane circumstance can judicial interpretation rationally consistently negate Congress having authority to regulate your thought activity.
Before dismissing the possibility of reading and even controlling your thought activity as ridiculous, understand that leading science and consequent technology is rapidly advancing towards being (if not already at least partially successfully is) capable of reading and manipulating your thoughts (at least in 2016 when this section was last updated).
As such, the supposed limits of government power remain completely obviously inconsistent (mud-like at best) at the serious danger and further risk of unethical favoritism against public safety and the likely ignited aforementioned revolutionary “hurricane” to reflect the following passage from our nation’s most famous declaration:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” — United States Declaration of Independence (archives.gov)
Brutal National Cry
This most critically brutal national situation cannot possibly be the United States of America intended by our revolutionary Founding Fathers (or anyone else) by any righteously sane measure.
The list of accusations against the British king expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence is increasingly devastatingly comparable to the overwhelming list of oligarchy-serving abuses of law happening nationally today at terrible pain against every-national-one — nonetheless with a serious global impact due to varying degrees of our nation’s impact worldwide.
That is partially (if not mainly) due to society refusing to publicly recognize the serious potential for law abuse prior to demanding (or apathetically accepting) legislative remedy against other forms of abuse — e.g. the constant, reckless, and dominating cry of “There outta be a law against that!”
Logic dictates that true American patriotism cannot possibly effectively condone anything but a responsible public backlash against the powerful pre-American-conservative momentum spanning our nation’s history inclusively dominantly throughout both major political parties.
Not “Love it or leave it!” under these critical national circumstances, but “Love it enough to justly fix it now for public safety.”
The cry for more regulations (i.e. euphemized prohibitions) is so boldly persistent these days, upon returning to our prime example, proponents for “legalizing” cannabis (quoted due to such legality never actually legitimately disappearing, according to logically grounded law) boldly proudly leverage the word regulation (nonetheless taxation) as some form of responsibility measure to achieve social credibility on behalf of their cause — nonetheless that tactic is effective, so continuously reinforces that cry.
One should be able to successfully contrast that cry by stating the fact that science has never experimentally concluded (instead of merely questionably suggested) that cannabis use (not just “heavy use” or abuse) does (not merely “may” or “can”) cause any harm.
As demonstrated for thousands of years by millions (if not billions) of people, cannabis use is a skill logically remaining easy to learn for minimizing any risk of that usage to a degree easily on par with any popularly accepted activity (e.g. sports), and the benefit of that proper usage is better stress management for better health — cannabis is not just “dope”.
By any actual respect for liberty in the “land of the free”, under no sane circumstance can that merely suggestive (and actually easily dismissed as junk) science suffice to sanction the “lawful” infringement of that fundamental and unalienable right, and consequently all of the demonstrable ironic harm at least against millions of actually innocent American citizens.
To strengthen that point, feel free to learn more about cannabis use and abuse (including the perfectly sound basis confirming that easy junk science dismissal) by reading Stress Health’s Respect Cannabis informational roots.
Factually speaking, law abuse is the sole basis for the war on [arbitrarily some purely politicized] drugs.
There is literally no concrete evidence validating the prohibitionists’ constant proclamation of societal disaster from “weakening” drug laws over the past few decades, and that is at least partially (but powerfully) and contrarily validated by the demonstrable absence of any prohibitionist ‘See? We told you so!’ campaign.
That disaster is obviously necessary for the sake of crossing the threshold towards any prohibition legitimacy.
The absence of that disaster is popularly (but obviously unethically) replaced by pathetically upholding — too often with powerful mainstream media support — the mere baseless assumption that legality equals harm.
Compromising principle to (intentionally or otherwise) encourage more law abuse for partially ending that war in favor of (highly questionably regulated) cannabis legality (while other drugs with similar risks remain “illegal”) is terrible and a careless waste of the powerful societal leverage provided by increasing the recognition of cannabis legality to bring so-called justice to actual justice.
By any respectable measure, this issue is most certainly not just about “legalizing” one reasonably popular drug for those people desiring the “right to get high” (and/or the medically relevant version of that right), but also inextricably liberty and law in general.
That includes the need to protect future generations from yet another socially devastating prohibition against use to again likely pretend to oppose abuse.
For prime example, logic dictates angry parents will organize themselves to publicly press hard to partially or wholly prohibit virtual reality upon its likely popular youthful embrace, because of the extreme drug-like impact capable of being abused for devastating (if not deadly) psychological harm.
Critically note that virtual reality is a serious (if not extreme) test against the first amendment (i.e. free speech), because expression and experience can be indistinguishable in that likely popular format.
That protection must also include lawfully preventing the undeniably evil financial incentive to incarcerate or otherwise harm more non-rights-infringing people to horrendously financially benefit that excessively powerful area of our governing oligarchy:
“The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior.” – Corrections Corporation of America 2010 Annual Report
Allowing mass incarceration for profit in the “land of the free” is obviously evil, but unfortunately another powerfully evil force protectively shrouds that evil.
The protective evil comes from the fully logically formed fact that the mainstream media unethically refuses to disclose a terribly obvious (yet eerily publicly ignored) conflict of interest to the overall benefit of law enforcement (and government in general) — even seriously powerfully against public safety.
That conflicting interest effectively forms serious journalistic bias to inclusively support law enforcement superficially benefiting from law abuse against the “public’s right to to know”, so the mainstream media can unethically secure persistent access (a journalism industry term) to the “newsworthy” information about the tragedies they obviously constantly report.
In other words, the government is always on the front lines of tragedy. The broader the impact of the tragedy, the higher up the government hierarchy journalists need to establish healthy relationships — i.e. access — to compete with other journalists for professional survival.
Journalists must refuse to “bite” the newsworthy informational “hand that feeds” — even if it means upholding mass suffering from government-favored law abuse — so effectively leaves us with state-run media in the land of the free press.
“While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of—truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability—as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.” — Wikipedia entry for Journalism ethics and standards
With overwhelmingly limited exceptions, essentially none of those principles has been (for several decades and strongly counting in 2016 when this section was last updated) applied in the case of Certain Drug Prohibition.
If you want to prove serious mainstream media bias, all you have to do is compile several decades of mainstream media content regarding “illicit” drugs and compare them with the whole truth of the issue spanning that same time frame (e.g. all scientific conclusions, public policy recommendations, justifications for sustaining and ending that prohibition, and so on).
The mainstream media dominantly and selfishly forms a terrible cycle to unhealthily manipulate public opinion, which is then leveraged to manipulate likely euphemistically discriminatory law.
That cycle starts by the mainstream media reporting something (likely irrelevant to the vast majority of people — e.g. murder, fire, car accident, isolated destructive weather event, and so on — but it could be anything except popular oligarchical abuse) for public consumption.
Then they ask certain people to express how they feel about the result of that report, while knowing full-well that the response is likely based solely upon mainstream media reporting, so easy to find and select only the responses forming the illusion of better journalistic credibility to actually secure better ratings for better journalistic revenue.
Then they gather whoever they proclaim to be experts (usually other journalists) to discuss the ramifications (too often 24/7) — and the purely journalistically controlled cycle repeats perpetually with no demonstrated concern over the severely negative effects from ignoring dutifully informing the public about critical oligarchical corruption.
If you press (even righteously) hard enough against that cycle, it makes sense to conclude that you will likely be journalistically (so largely publicly) targeted and smeared (e.g. condemned as crazy, a criminal, a traitor, and so on), regardless of even the righteous strength of your argument, so they can protect their very corruptly powerful cycle for themselves.
“News” then becomes a public controller (seriously powerful when democracy is a factor), so the public’s right to know is shaped dominantly by “journalism” (see aforementioned accusation of effectively state-run media), so the public largely and easily is convinced to popularly ignore demonstrable oligarchical abuses (e.g. war on [arbitrarily some] drugs).
That cycle has been somewhat thankfully successfully challenged due to the existence of persistent communications via the internet (e.g. at least the main reason why cannabis prohibition is continuously losing ground), which allows the public to bypass that cycle to study publications (e.g. this one) to see beyond that manipulation to the mainstream media’s inevitable discredit (if not thankful collapse of their currently heavily abusive form).
However, that bypass is only a relatively brief window of righteous public opportunity, so public urgency remains strong to publicly maturely press hard against any internet-based form of oligarchical control over the masses (“to protect the children”) to instead logically preferably ensure the public remains the indisputable masters of the internet (i.e. public communication) necessary to organize sufficiently against oligarchical abuse as needed.
In other words, to maintain a too-often immoral grip solely to secure oligarchical comforts at even serious public pain, public control of the internet is being aggressively oligarchically attacked “to protect the children” (and deceptive such).
The public must now and perpetually press back extremely maturely hard to urgently protect free speech, because losing free speech always logically becomes far more destructive then all online criminality combined due to the serious power of any abusive (inter)national oligarchy — critically remember that law abuse is logically the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction.
Liberty advocates must powerfully perpetually unite to ensure any citizen’s posts are not being unethically deleted or edited — e.g. by often testing post content against such editing, and testing post reach in any popular social network (including journalistic/blogging environment, and so on).
Logic dictates that even building a separate, intuitively simple, pleasurable to use, and conflict-of-interest-free social network dedicated to helping the public oppose oligarchical abuse is paramount.
In addition to necessarily cleaning up the massively demonstrable judicial mess subjecting our nation to (at best, muddy) ruin, feel free to publicly form to a sufficient degree of strength and proclaim insistence upon honorable journalists (and relevantly others) to clean up the massively demonstrable informational mess (i.e. minimize, if impossible to eliminate, reason abuse) that constitutes a major negative factor towards journalistically unethically encouraging that judicial mess for decades and counting obviously powerfully against public safety.
Rule of Reality
When you make a living from the destruction of liberty, law, and many of your fellow citizens, you are a criminal in any actual justice system, and literally perfect confidence assures you by reality’s hardcore (not pseudo/junk) scientific need for balance — the Rule of Reality (RoR) — full agonizing payment can only be sanely expected by you and any relevantly participating yours for ultimately selfishly choosing that evil path.
Too many people unfortunately suffer from the extremely idiotic notion that abuse can be applied without balancing consequences (e.g. getting away with murder by evading humanity’s punishment system — if nobody sees you, it did not happen).
As anyone scientifically understanding Reality Waveform Theory (or, if RWT is debunked, even basic mainstream science) can attest, reality shows only scientific signs (actually sines upon RWT’s scientific validation) confirming reality’s need for balance for stability (similar to literally 100% of the known systems within reality), and reality is obviously stable as sufficiently proven by your experience.
Death may seem to be a smirk-prompting escape route for the corrupt, but the purely energetic ocean seamlessly constituting reality (mainstream scientifically beyond perceived spatial dimensions nonetheless) raises the serious question regarding humanity’s popular assessment of death as the end of personal experience — especially upon considering that life has only ever been subjectively defined even within the most popularly credible area of the scientific community.
By need for balance in this seamless ocean of energy, reality demonstrates that dominance is always spent (and automatically paid for in full) — i.e. full application of the law of physics stating any action is an opposite and equal reaction (logically meaning any set of actions — including yours — is an opposite and equal set of reactions) — importantly noting the seamless nature of reality leaves only one “action” known as reality (RWT explains why there is no ’cause and effect’ or multiple object violation of that fundamental law of physics in the humanly action case involving temporally delayed reaction).
Time is a dimension of space, according to the furthest reach of the scientific method — thank you, Dr. Albert Einstein and relevant company repeatedly experimentally validating that brilliant conclusion.
Therefore, all time actually occurs in one moment — this one.
As reality clearly still exists (as experimentally proven by your current experience), reality must certainly be supremely forever (i.e. permanently) dominant (i.e. reality never dies in the future, or anywhere else).
All consciously aware beings within reality hardcore scientifically never win the fight against reality’s sometimes antagonizing — and, in the case of abusively recklessly excessive comfort, logically agonizing — need for balance. For reality’s undeniable stability, that balancing process must negate mercy until that balance has been achieved.
If you screw someone over, you inevitably screw (at least) yourself over, so spending dominance (like spending any other resource) wisely to the fullest possible extent makes flawless sense.
Critically note the constant proclamation for righteousness typically involves some flavor of ‘the end justifies the means’.
Scientifically speaking, the only actual end is this moment. The means is the only true end, so that supposed justification is actually pathetically meaningless (the end justifies the end) worthy solely of public ignoring, or (if applicable) bringing any relevantly guilty individual to justice upon rights infringement on behalf of achieving the end.
Understanding that reality is paying literally perfect attention to every detail (because reality literally is every detail) forms the inescapable conclusion that you are always being “watched” (even when you think you are operating unseen).
Behavior experts confirm that behavior radically improves upon knowledge of mature observance (e.g. a kid does not take a cookie right before dinner, if a properly punishing parental presence remains threateningly obvious to that kid).
Reality is a certainty (suitable for oblaw nonetheless) defined as literally whatever happens. That effectively means reality is literally the ultimate judge in 100% of occurrences, logically speaking.
Oblaw fundamentally completely incorporates the purely logical RoR as a scientific assurance that abusive behavior cannot possibly escape full reimbursement.
Worth repeating for critical emphasis, nobody within reality can possibly cause any (inclusively mass) suffering without fully paying for it in strictest accordance with reality’s undeniable need for balance.
The most powerful people remain most powerfully logically warned throughout posterity.
Learning the RoR certainty provides supremely powerful incentive for anyone to minimize damage from the abuse effectively mandated by imperfection within reality.
Even the evil part of a person usually prefers to avoid excessive (including purely unpleasurable against the masochistic) suffering.
Being carelessly abusive is like idiotically picking a fight with literally the toughest being. You are literally 100% guaranteed to lose that fight.
Being drunk on power is demonstrably seriously and pitifully idiotic.
Overall refusing to maximally negate your abuses (a form of defeatism) is the path of self-destruction.
RoR logically righteously is a seriously powerful and instant egotism deflator (if not eliminator) against abusive “leaders”, because (as opposed to relishing being publicly feared and/or such) no egotist can handle being logically publicly pitied and condemned as idiotic.
Imperfection within reality is unavoidable, so those abuses inevitably exist, but at least a serious part of the real definition of insanity is the inability (even if by mere refusal — e.g. denial) to maximally oppose those abuses (i.e. maximally healthily adapt by shifting stressors to a survival-enhancing position).
That righteously logically includes being a valuable contributor for a healthy community and environment to increase the odds of having that community and environment (ultimately reality) valuing your contribution enough to powerfully defend your survival.
The RoR is factually a naturally governing force, but one too often dangerously missing within human understanding, at least during 2016 when this section was last updated.
For the necessarily responsible wielding of liberty for optimal existence, the RoR must be respectably embraced by even the most childish minds capable of understanding that ‘nobody ever gets away with abusive behavior’ truth.
Understand that defeat is ultimately mutual.
Righteous Oligarchical Protection
As lightly stated and worthy of elaboration, blib does not just protect the relatively powerless, but also the righteous exercise within the powerful oligarchy spanning both the private and public sectors, because leadership is not always abusive.
Factually speaking, the strongest human-made force is the sufficiently organized masses.
If the public at large passionately demands change with a clear threat of violence against any oligarchy avoiding that demand, that change will eventually occur — even if it takes a violent revolution to get there.
For hopefully never-happening example, if the roughly 300 million Americans irrationally demand that national leadership change a law or face serious consequences otherwise, then not even the seriously powerful national military stands a chance against those sufficiently organized (and potentially well-armed) masses.
Even if the military wins the militaristic aspect of that revolt, critically note that any oligarchy (including its protective military) relies upon sufficient public support for sustainment.
Blib protects the righteous aspects of an oligarchy by allowing objectivity to form the just basis for rejecting irrational public demand for change, so at least greatly increases the odds of diffusing that seriously tense public situation by the power of irrefutable reasoning.
With civility firmly in mind, the powerless through powerful can leverage blib (and oblaw in general) to counter abusively selfish intentions in the form of law (spin doctors, and such, be finally justly removed from power), so excellently reinforce our Constitution to meet its intended purpose — primarily to prevent law abuse to better serve and protect the public.
Basically repeating for emphasis, that must involve establishing and maintaining the hardest legal line possible in the form of maximally objectively defining harm to increasingly accurately and properly deal with people actually defying blib on either side of the rule-of-law, and nonetheless naturally compel our species to maximally scientifically understand harm to improve survival odds for at least our species.
An inevitably righteously inclusive nature is one power of Liberty Shield, which is never leveraged for demonization for (historically demonstrated or any other) profit-driving (or any other selfishly motivated) persecution, but serves and protects the public from that highly destructive stance.
Anyone within any area of society (regardless of profession, financial status, social status, race, gender, and so on) has legitimate reason to join upholding our Liberty Shield throughout posterity, so friends of Liberty Shield may exist literally anywhere.
In case you remain curious about the apparent absence of the other two fundamental American rights (the ones for life and the pursuit of happiness) in the Liberty Shield context, as liberty is the condition of being free from restriction or control, to the extent that right is implemented is logically the extent that the other two fundamental rights are naturally implemented.
Liberty Shield simplifies our fundamental rights by consolidating them into the one fundamental right to liberty, and simplifies entertaining promotion of that right by leveraging the extremely popular word liberty.
Liberty is extremely popular, because it obviously is a requirement for spirituality, sex, drugs, rock-n-roll (and all other music), every other popular/popularly-unpopular activity, and so on.
Although Liberty Shield believes that blib is the only necessary right (when properly implemented), note that plurality to form rights is still utilized herein for the sake of familiarity.
Though unable to go into the full depths of defining rights infringement within these informational roots, oblaw demands that only direct rights infringement (e.g. murder, rape, theft, slander, and so on) be prosecutable by law.
Indirect rights infringement (or the potential thereof) can never form judicial prosecution with an unalienable right to liberty.
The act of breathing indirectly and potentially leads to all rights-infringing acts (e.g. basically, if you cannot breathe, you cannot murder).
If Congress can legislate on the basis of indirect/potential rights infringement (as they currently selectively do — e.g. banning merely holding a certain plant in your American hand), but cannot regulate or ban your breathing (probably because of the insane absolutism undeniably consequently formed against liberty), then a judicial “liberty line” must be subjectively drawn against the unalienable right to liberty (i.e. a blib-infringing line separating indirectly/potentially rights-infringing activities subjectively ruled legally acceptable or not).
Breathing must obviously never be regulated by Congress, and the unalienable property of liberty is critical towards preventing law abuse, so only direct rights infringement possibly qualifies for judicial prosecution in accordance with a just rule-of-law.
Risk must never be defined by law due to the serious ironic risk of law abuse, so irrefutably prompts a necessary transformation of American law in the name of fairness and therefore justice.
Sound preference leans towards minimizing harm against society during that necessary transformation, so basically involves some form of ultimately gradual course to responsibly clean up the massive judicial mess spanning over two centuries — though there likely remains no painless way to achieve that justice due to the horribly entrenched nature of unjust law and wildly expressed abusive reasoning still “cleverly” forming a correspondingly high degree of corruption.
Basically repeating for emphasis, defining direct rights infringement is obviously all about objectively defining harm maximally perpetually against imperfection.
In scientific fact (at least assuming Reality Waveform Theory remains valid), there is literally no objective distinction ever possible.
Reality is a seamless ocean of energy from humanity’s purely energetic (and equally seamless) perspective, and even death itself may simply be pseudo–objective — i.e. only possibly a 100% consensus by the exercise of pure honesty within humanity, but not necessarily death from all possible views beyond humanity’s demonstrable limits.
For the sake of applying law within humanity, pseudo-objectivity is at least arguably sufficient and necessary, because otherwise there can only be chaos, and whatever harmony naturally forms in accordance with reality’s scientific and supremely logically dominant need for balance.
Humanity can say that murder is pseudo-objectively harmful, for prime example, because in 100% of murders, someone dies, which is at least arguably the extreme of harm from humanity’s perspective.
Objectivity with respect to humanity’s law herein inclusively contains pseudo-objectivity.
The right to liberty in the form of self-defense seemingly legitimately creates a problem against blib, because rights-infringement in this case only comes from the logically righteous application of self-defensive murder (not the murderous threat).
However, a deadly threat (and psychological harm in general) logically enhances pursuit of the most objective definition of harm to include those threats (basically a “pen is mightier than the sword” type of conclusion combined with unethically yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater).
Critically note the key distinction from the currently judicially recognized “clear and present danger”, which is a purely subjective judicial line leveraged solely for risk-based law, but ironically the most serious clear and present danger for “slippery slope” expansion of law abuse.
That deceptive yelling (or such) is not problematic, if actual harm is avoided. Obviously that harm is likely (if not certain — e.g. from mass trampling in a crowded theater), and that becomes the suitable basis for judicial prosecution (not risk).
No technology is perfect, at least due to entropy, and that same principle applies to oblaw.
While oblaw will always require maintenance and improvements like any technological accomplishment, the irrefutable logical constructs form a much stronger “house” than the one currently built from “mud”, and logically greatly advances humanity against law abuse without negating the righteous public effort to optimally manage abusive behavior in general.
That includes relying upon ever-improving education (needing ever-improving entertainment for learning interest) — and never law — to reduce risk from stupidity, which can (and, as history often-enough demonstrates, does) exist on either side of any law, but can never exist on both sides of purely accurately honest education against misinformation.
Whole truth logically defies stupidity, or simply contains stupidity as a subjective conclusion, with no possible harm against that ultimate truth.
Objectivity negates stupidity.
The purely seamless energetic ocean confessedly makes it seriously challenging to draw fair legal lines, but that challenge must be met (i.e. humanity must draw better lines for the sake of survival, despite the inevitable subjectivity of those lines).
In other metaphorical words, no house is perfect, but obviously maximum focus on advancing housing technology remains increasingly dominant against pathetically settling upon mud house constructs via defeatism.
In other brief words, obviously the clear tendency is for society to define risk by law these days to prevent rights infringement from happening.
However, when that risk definition ironically inevitably forms the serious risk of law abuse due to unethical favoritism (i.e. when that risk definition ironically forms the most serious threat of mass rights infringement), the need for a truly optimally free society to turn to an alternate solution for risk management (effective education being the only possible rational solution) to prevent rights infringement becomes absolute.
In short, education is needed to prevent harm (including maximally accurately educating risks), law is needed to maturely end abused power upon rights infringement, and strictest application of the scientific method is needed to best objectively define the best just line separating education and law for public safety.
The only civilized punishment (other forms of torture to prevent abuse by fear are ultimately socially destructive — abuse is all about unhealthy stress, so a healthy stress adaptation, not fear as the tool of thugs, is logically righteous) is applying a dry and maximal removal of the ability to further continue that conclusively proven abuse (help an abuser adapt, while upholding public safety).
Metaphorically speaking, an excellent example is a child refusing to stop abusing a toy by harming other kids with it. A good parent simply takes the toy away, and the child never sees it again (albeit if that harm is minimal enough, that removal may occur after proper warning).
Upon similarly abusing another toy, that child instantly understands upon that same serious parental observance that new toy will also forever disappear upon abuse (providing adequate and civilized incentive to abandon that abusive conduct — no disciplinary spanking or yelling required).
Punishment within civility means the mature removal of abused power (e.g. isolate murderers to avoid another murder of an innocent victim).
Anyone disrespecting the rights of another individual naturally disrespects their own rights (i.e. the essence of being a criminal), so that disrespect justifies terminating the rights of a convicted criminal (like removing the abused toy in the last example).
If the victim of the crime can recover from the damage done (e.g. theft), then the criminal can equally recover (regain their rights via hard-earned respect for those rights) — perhaps by making amends to the victim’s satisfaction. Otherwise, that criminal’s rights are lost for life, but their contribution to society must not be equally lost. They must humanely work for a living like anyone outside of correctional facilities, and society can (with civility firmly in mind) work with that criminal to learn more about abuse prevention to help prevent similar crimes.
While the understandable need for maximally ensuring innocent people can protect themselves against criminals is always pressing, everyone must understand that tragedy is inherent within reality.
For prime example, each one of us will die at some point, regardless of the rule-of-law or any other effort to negate that personal failure.
Some people argue that scientifically negating aging defies that logic, but death still remains due to destructive stress from other sources (including possibly a major cosmic event or deadly resource exhaustion from overpopulation).
As already stated, reality is 100% dominant, so no individual subjectively defined within reality can match or exceed that dominance, regardless of evolutionary (including technological) enhancement.
Understandable forgiveness by innocent victims (and/or their loved ones) is key towards improving society.
That forgiveness comes from a genuine understanding that all positivity (e.g. wonderful life) is fully paid for by way of a balancing negativity (e.g. horribly violent death) due to reality’s need for balance.
Inevitable justice within reality logically instantly forms natural closure for surviving victims — with civilization’s logical sympathy by understanding each of those victim’s challenging healing process still remains due to the need for adaptation.
Moreover on the flip side, suffering is the path to benefit in this infinitely modulating existence that you are a physical and seamless part of, so all victims must be fully beneficially compensated for their suffering to achieve reality’s logically necessary balance.
Trust (and credibility overall) is lost against anyone infringing upon fundamental rights, so crossing that infringement threshold necessarily places that criminal in another area of society isolated for public safety.
Because punishers are vulnerable to corruption, extreme care must be perpetually applied to ensure proper power removal.
Critically note the only enemy of corruption (besides a natural disabling of corrupt exercise via death, or such) is sufficient exposure.
Investing (health, sociality, and resources) into (y)our community to righteously achieve credibility for securing survival or “thrival” needs is sensible.
Harming other people to supposedly get ahead, while reality must automatically punish for balance, is senseless — so that harmer clearly suffers from a mental illness.
Any murderer (for prime example) carefully planning and executing a murder is insane by default, so an insanity defense makes no ultimate sense.
Crime is an abuse, which is all about compensating for unhealthy stress.
Punishment is unhealthy stress, so automatically ironically increases the need for abuse.
The more society gets it right in terms of stress management (which requires responsible flexibility), the less crime naturally occurs, so the incentive to commit crimes in horrible neighborhoods (for solid example) to benefit from free survival needs ironically due to incarceration is also reduced.
Civility is not about punishing. Civility increasing corresponds with punishment (unhealthy stress) decreasing.
Arms: weapons, especially firearms. — dictionary.com
As a serious part of exposing muddy weak constitutional vagueness, there is the hotly debated second constitutional amendment involving the right to bear arms.
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions. The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.
One version was passed by the Congress.
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In strict conformance with blib and the second amendment as directly authored, any individual has the right to keep and bear arms without infringement.
Therefore any law against that arming (in any form due to the absence of any directly constitutionally stated exception) is logically illegal.
Critically note that illegality covers all state and local laws restricting access (even if only temporarily) to any form of arms, because of the Supremacy Clause.
Despite that clarity, however, there is a nationally massively complex judicial regulatory push (including legal precedence via that push) by traditional political leftists corroding that obvious right.
They proclaim that push is sanely in righteous response to the relatively occasional examples of gun abuse (e.g. accidental shootings and mental illness driven tragedy).
Human beings are not always physically dominant (e.g. even the strongest unarmed and naked human being likely dies wrestling a healthy adult lion), but we have usually powerfully dominated upon the application of reason and consequent technology.
Understandably, no other species disarms itself in the natural competition to survive, and it ultimately makes no sense for there to be a human exception.
Our police cannot be everywhere at once, so that inevitable delay is obviously at least seriously risky.
An attacker with a gun (probably purchased in the black market, because Certain Gun Prohibition, as with Certain Drug Prohibition, has not been concretely — as opposed to questionably statistically — proven effective) has plenty of time to seize the clear advantage.
Having a gun in self-defense does not guarantee victory, but it surely improves the odds against thuggery — especially when the attack occurs in a place only familiar to the defender.
Getting to hardcore basics, liberty is always directly attacked on grounds of (inclusively potential) abuse.
Violent video games are an excellent example in this case. In response to at least one mass shooting, because the shooter played violent video games, there was a serious press for Violent Video Game Prohibition (which was thankfully shot down on first amendment — i.e. free speech — grounds).
To properly defend liberty, everyone must be most promptly firmly conditioned to always ask one simple question upon any proposal to judicially restrict liberty:
How many people exercise that example of liberty proposed to be prohibited without objectively conclusively harming anyone?
In the case of violent video games, the answer is crystal clear. Many millions of people play violent video games, but there has been no corresponding surge in criminal activity as a result.
In other words, the answer to that question is always the overwhelming majority of any form of liberty exercise occurs without conclusively proven harm (historically speaking, frankly at least to the best of this author’s knowledge), so the idea that occasional abuse (even a viciously horrible act) justifies blanket rights infringement against the individual right to best survive a situation is ironically hypocritically a metaphorical mass shooting.
Gun sales basically match that of violent video games, so millions of guns (i.e. logically the overwhelming majority) are used properly.
Why is the deadly tragedy of people incapable of properly arming themselves to at least have a chance to survive outweighed by the traditional leftist defined victims of gun abuse?
By any logical measure, that outweighing is outrageously baseless.
Either traditional political leftists have not thought this issue through, and/or they are intentionally corroding the right to bear arms to ensure public sector dominance over our lives — the latter being perfectly consistent with their political agenda.
From the aforementioned Wikipedia entry:
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
Responsible armament makes sense for those reasons, while undermining unhealthy stress as the root cause of gun (and any other form of) abuse.
Only people reasonably trained and desiring to bear arms should indeed do so, and there should be promotional and educational efforts to ensure and facilitate that proper training.
That includes ensuring each child understands that immaturely playing with a gun (actually any weapon) is idiotic, and if they see any demonstration of that immaturity, they should immediately contact emergency services (or the closest available authority capable of preventing harm in that case).
While people always have the right to choose diplomatic methods to conflict resolution without bearing arms, it must be made perfectly clear that sanity can only effectively acknowledge that insanity (obviously certain among reckless abusers) can tragically naturally oppose diplomatic efforts.
If you can understand that insanity enough to negotiate a peaceful resolution, then wonderful, but only up to the point upon realizing that insanity inevitably leads to at least questionable trust.
A successfully used weapon-based defense can always defy that insanity, so logically must always be at the ready upon dangerously failing diplomacy.
Technology is on the path to cheaper, smaller, yet more powerful weapons. That means the target opportunities for malice naturally increase.
Instead of continuing the demonstrably failed Certain Drug Prohibition giving society only sanctioned thuggery in the “land of the free”, a respectable shift in law enforcement resources (e.g. two officers always at the ready, while on patrol per school in session) allows much better defense and response times. Logically superior to “gun free” zones unintentionally advertised as great targets for the insanely power hungry, trained defenders of the peace can quickly smartly react (and naturally prevent via presence alone) to any attack.
Responsible toughness is a prerequisite for civility.
Taxation is another serious challenge for blib supporters.
On the one hand, any government obviously needs sufficient resources to function properly.
On the other hand, taxation automatically equals liberty infringement (by sanctioned theft and other forms of financial and judicially regulatory leverage dominantly pressing towards adjusting individual behavior) against a properly judicially restored constitutional amendment nine.
Strictly efficient and minimal government structuring minimizes expenses to solely the necessary degree (e.g. sufficiently strong national defense and foreign relations organized at the federal level), but only a purely voluntary tax system justly fits at any level of government.
That voluntary system may seem laughable at first, but not as tragically laughable as the ‘tax against liberty’ approach demonstrated historically, which includes the seriously bulky and counterintuitive tax code prompting understandable national controversy (and sometimes, if not often or even extreme, outrage) — and has been exacerbated to the hideous point to sometimes include estimated taxes (paying taxes on money that has not been, and may not be, received — punished for underestimating, but not rewarded for overestimating).
Since basically nobody will merely voluntarily give resources to our government, sufficient rewards (e.g. proportionally broad and relevant credibility and visibility enhancement) must exist as an incentive.
The more resources given combined with the positive effectiveness of those resources towards public safety, logically the greater that honorable recognition.
Powerfully note that because law is no longer wildly subjectively defined, those resources cannot be leveraged for more legislative influence on the basis of favoritism against public safety.
Voluntary participation in the government’s financial lottery is also an acceptable method of securing government resources.
Then instead of essentially carelessly abusing financial resources without sufficient fear of public backlash, the natural incentive is for government to then behave responsibly (including financially), because otherwise the public will respond by negating financial support (or reallocating that support to a just revolutionary cause for their safety) until corruption is at least reasonably eliminated.
That forms real and serious public leverage against an abusive oligarchy to secure critical national balance, so grants serious power to the public to help offset the dangerous imbalance from (too often selfish) oligarchical expansion by the public merely leveraging solely the voting lever to metaphorically elect which sexually transmitted disease is experienced by the voter.
Even the key area of national security (and other government areas well beyond the reach of the voting lever) is seriously impacted by that publicly powerful financial leverage (righteously without dangerously sacrificing national secrecy).
The automatic incentive to financially contribute to government sustainment is community degradation without that contribution (including risky exposure to foreign invasion obviously affecting the powerful through powerless).
Giving to an honorable government is logically an honorable act worthy of public praise (and all of the credibility — the essence of survival and “thrival” — accompanying that reward). If a nation cannot achieve those honorable results, then logic dictates that nation deserves to fail in the competition to achieve a better social infrastructure for our species’ survival and “thrival”.
As reality’s need for balance provides perfect incentive for people experiencing the sensation of enjoying serious comfort to remain fully aware that a contrasting discomforting price is inevitable, wisely investing excessive resources towards private and public areas needing support for a better society (and the obvious return on investment from that community strengthening) makes equally perfect sense.
Additionally importantly, people suffering from poverty retain the liberty to choose how their seriously limited financial resources are allocated, so retain a serious financial boost from a purely voluntary tax system that they can opt out of during that serious financial challenge.
If stupidity demonstrably dominates (e.g. foolishly gambling away necessary money), then survival righteously becomes impossible. Everyone within reality dies at some point, so (besides honorable sacrifice) death by some form of intentional or unintentional stupidity (e.g. victimization towards health problems) is inevitable. Charitable luck combined with a healthy balance of work and rest ethics remains the only possible and sensible salvation to temporarily avoid death.
An unalienable right to liberty insists upon free markets that fully respect that right, so no genuinely harmful business practices. With reality’s need for balance providing the financially wealthy folks a powerful warning to ensure those resources are not abused (e.g. no childish competing of net worths), we are thankfully left with a naturally healthy resource flow greatly facilitating civility.
The economy is obviously an overwhelmingly complex system, so the sadly judicially acceptable idea of economic experts responsibly controlling (actually tinkering with) the economy is also tragically laughable (like weather experts being able to control global weather).
There are many economic leaders apparently burdened by conflicts of interest inclusively against public safety (e.g. pumping in lots of unbacked credit to form the illusion of economic recovery).
Credit spends similar to cash, but obviously is distinct in key aspects (e.g. interest). Therefore, credit and cash should be clearly distinct in economic reporting and consideration (e.g. taking out a business loan to rollover upon declining interest rates is different from earnings).
Like anything in reality, the economy is imperfect, so economic tragedy is inevitable.
Choose your occasional economic poison, society.
Do you want a free-flowing economy grounded in hard currency (i.e. currency limited by the supply of precious metals that maintain consistent value), but at risk due to the limits of currency supply mismatching economic growth (e.g. deflation causing economic stagnation), or the risk of a technologically possible negative spike in that value from a publicly quickly appearing and innovatively cheap and easy way to make a lot of precious metals?
Do you want a fiat currency (no gold standard) instead, despite economic leverage falling into the hands of oligarchical leadership continuously tempted by conflicts of interest (e.g. seriously distorted economic reporting for political gain, ass covering, outright theft, and so on), so igniting the serious risk of mistrust that could lead to economic panic and consequent collapse?
The list of similar questions could be lengthy here due to economic complexity (basically, there are a lot of possible tools for leveraging economic flow for worst through best), but a solid foundation built upon integrity (and inevitably honesty) obviously makes sense.
Dishonesty at the highest levels of leadership puts that trust at severe risk.
Trusting the value of your money is obviously key. However, your net worth is uncertain, unless you secure that worth into the physical possession of valuable goods. However still, possessing precious metals (and/or so on) is risky, because of theft and other threats.
Banks make sense, but only when they protect your money.
Economy experts cannot control economic complexity, but they can implement and adapt a solid economic foundation. Complexity without genuine basics is chaos.
The internet exists, because of the need to decentralize networking to eliminate the possibility of destroying a network hub to bring down the entire network.
Banking system structuring must be similar, so there is a hard limit against the consolidation of too much economic power and the accompanying (and likely unpredictable) distortions leading to serious corruption from that excess.
Balance is stability, so an economic balance of power makes sense.
The economy cannot infinitely grow, because nothing within reality can infinitely grow. In a purely energetic reality (e.g. this one, at least according to mainstream physics), literally everything modulates, so the economy always modulates too. Infinite amplitude would break that modulation, so infinite amplitude is factually impossible (as proven simply by your reading of this material — i.e. reality’s modulation clearly has not been broken).
Economic winners and losers always exist, so any economic influence can only be geared towards shifting victimization (logically likely to secure victory for the group controlling that influence).
When the economy grows, more banks (with differing and healthily competing leadership to avoid excessive power consolidation) emerge as may be needed. Economic shrinkage (think low economic tide) means banks are closed as may be needed (with their business assets sold to successfully growing operations).
In short, maximally improving economic adaptation is the key to minimizing serious economic spikes with their terribly rippling consequences against justifiable liberty.
Risk is always a part of life, but blib demands individuals have control over that risk, because to define risk is to unavoidably define liberty.
Excessively centralized power (e.g. “too big to fail”) is the grossest economic risk against public safety, so this becomes the prime area for a caring public to apply their dominant pressure against that unhealthy power consolidation.
Regarding most (if not all) critical systems, there is an auxiliary backup system, so if the main system fails, all is not lost. Given that the economy is a critical system, logic at least suggests that a backup core economic system (e.g. perhaps a reserve pool of precious metals, and/or computerized such, allocated to the public to meet basic survival needs) should be thoroughly competently considered and, upon sound justification, built to minimize damage from extreme economic collapse (e.g. rapidly reaching complete public mistrust against a fiat currency).
As proper resource flow is critical for society, everyone must have a basic understanding of the economic mechanisms of that flow, so publicly universal education must include that subject (perhaps replacing certain mathematical and/or science subjects that most people will never use beyond graduation — but for some unacceptable reason, remain mandatory in basic education).
To avoid having economic complexity conquer brevity here, the bottom line is to teach everyone that a diverse and balanced financial portfolio minimizes risk by minimizing the damage done when an economic area meets tragedy. That (along with proper resource management in general) qualifies as basic education, so should be taught to all children capable of understanding the critical nature of that management.
In other short words, basic economics (not complex and politically spun economics — including free market demonization for unethical reasons) should be educationally required for every citizen.
Reason abuse spans from outright lying to any form of the ‘partial truth = whole truth’ scam.
That abuse is too often considered (i.e. promoted by reason abusers as) necessary for progress, and that too often includes forming the basis for abusive law among other mistakes.
If sanity prevails against extinction, reality’s need for balance effectively insists that society must immediately abandon the excessively abhorrently popular notion that sometimes you need to compromise integrity for progress.
In other words, leveraging whole truth accuracy makes full and firmly grounded sense, because of the inevitable cost of reason abuse as inevitably applied in the form of reality’s necessary balancing response, and because meeting the challenge of honesty naturally better tunes you in with reality.
That tuning forms a better understanding of reality for worst through best, so naturally increases legitimate survival odds for at least our species, while reason abuse (even the “white lie”) causes people to take (in)action based upon non-actuality (i.e. make at least one mistake).
Moreover, if reason abuse is scientifically confirmed as harmful on par with stabbing or shooting someone (a likely outcome upon understanding the unhealthy neurological physicality from reason abuse), then intentionally leveraging reason abuse (to a degree worthy of judicial resource expenditure) will become justly prosecutable.
Up to this point, Liberty Shield outrageously insists upon ending traffic laws (which are all risk-based laws).
If you want to understand why anarchy can never remain sustained, and powerfully understand the need for government and traffic laws, remove traffic lights at a busy intersection (e.g. in a metropolis during rush hour). An instant and logically anger-igniting bottleneck likely occurs (based at least upon common sense) with the need to eventually form some order — i.e. government — to solve the problem by moving cars and determine optimal intersection flow.
That remains a grand example until computers fully take over driving (eliminating the need for traffic lights, and so on), but the point remains the same — the public context with potential harm involvement necessitates rules (government) for abuse prevention (healthiest public flow).
To end that outrage, Liberty Shield embraces context ownership for the formation of just public context laws (or plaws for simpler communication and proper distinction). Laws still remain focused solely upon dealing with direct rights infringement, but violating plaws constitutes that infringement by law to trigger fittingly necessary punishing consequences.
Plaws are strictly limited in power, in part due to strict context limitations.
There are private contexts (including business, residential, spiritual, and so on) and the public context (perhaps multiple public contexts conforming to federal/state/local distinction, or such, as may be needed). Additionally, there is the personal context (e.g. you) that can move between public and private contexts.
Context necessarily determines rights dominance to resolve conflicting rights.
Anyone alone (sole personal context) within their private context is completely free.
When someone else with equal rights voluntarily enters a context they do not own, a temporary suspension of that individual’s rights (only to the degree shy of illegal harm) occurs.
More specifically, any business (homeowner, or such) can define rules pertaining to their private context (including risk-based rules), but no maximally objectively direct harm (i.e. illegal harm) is lawfully permissible in any private context (e.g. private context owner cannot lawfully murder beyond self-defense, and so on).
Public contexts allow the public to determine risk-based plaws (including traffic plaws, wilderness preservation plaws, recreational activity plaws, and so on) for public positivity, but those plaws can never infringe upon blib in a private context (e.g. no ability to prevent transporting a harmless product by default — such as cannabis — in the public context to attempt addressing abuse in another context).
As context ownership does not (at least fully and strongly) exist within our Constitution, an accurate (i.e. oblaw-based) constitutional amendment is needed.
At least within 2016 when this section was last updated, there is a serious problem associated with private flying drones occasionally coming dangerously close to airplanes. Formally recognizing context ownership provides the proper remedy.
At least because of airplanes, invited drones, satellites, and flying cars (should they come to popularly pass), any private context must have a limited height (one high enough to ensure maximally possible proper privacy and quietness for civility).
No uninvited flying drone can penetrate any other private (and, upon passing relevant plaws, the public) context. That penetration is the basis for shutdown of that drone (e.g. overriding control with a ‘go home’ set of commands to send the drone safely back to the point of its controller, if voluntarily added by the drone manufacturer), or whatever defense appropriate (e.g. shooting that drone down without causing further destruction).
Context shielding (e.g. energy fields capable of forming event triggers, a technological area that will logically continue to strengthen) optionally allows automatic processes for dealing with context violation.
In a hopefully upcoming edit (and/or preferably including your oblaw public proposal(s) involving any upcoming edit, and/or nonetheless any other Liberty Shield context by the way), more details will reasonably thoroughly explain the complexities of context boundaries.
Serious care is needed here to avoid the aforementioned poor consistency of metaphorical mud.
Laws defining what you can do with your property (e.g. local laws dictating how your property looks) and/or defining nuisance (e.g. sound waves, light reflections, smells, and so on to the violation of context boundaries) qualify for proper addressing within this area of concern.
Personal context also covers the seriously (if not extremely) dynamic subjectivity of sensitivity, and how dominating views of sensitivity become unjust law (by unfairly judicially defining harm). The relationship between maximally objectively proven harm from mere sensitivity is critical towards optimizing liberty for everyone (which is sensibly needed to actually progress humanity). Sensitivity is all about stress (healthy or not), so offers a hint towards improving our scientific understanding of harm (and consequently just law). The Stress Health entertainment (and inclusively educational) ecosystem offers more information regarding the critical subject of stress to facilitate research and implementation on this front.
More details about the personal context are needed for properly applying oblaw to determine the true physicality involving any citizen (and logically extend to establish rights for other species without disrespecting healthiest species-level competition for survival).
Personal context inclusively addresses the increasing problems with informational structures (e.g. name, location, favorite this and that, and so on) being essentially forcibly provided to marketing companies (one or more governments, and so on) at least questionably against righteous privacy. ‘Information rape’ (if you will), especially on a large scale (e.g. nationally) is a serious societal problem excessively publicly undiscussed, because those ‘rapists’ (basically too many marketers dealing with conflicts of interest, and selfishly avoid choosing the public-benefiting side of those conflicts) have serious leverage over the mainstream media, who in turn have serious leverage over public consensus (in short, the public is excessively unethically driven by the masters of psychological manipulation).
At least arguably, there is no wisdom in allowing information reasonably powerfully impacting a citizen to be abused in any surreptitious way by easily essentially forcing (through basically monopolistic means) submission of that information by mere product/service usage.
A life form is (at least objectively arguably) more than a lump of cells, so basic visually defined boundaries containing those cells in terms of applicable rights remains (at least objectively arguably) insufficient towards public safety. One solution here is to simply, voluntarily, and competitively offer products/services leveraging the prevention of surreptitious informational dissemination (e.g. an intuitively configurable filter located at the data gateway for personal and private contexts basically capable of preventing any networked device from sharing inappropriate data — automatically or by personal reaction to an alert, so an actual opt-out measure directly controlled by the information giver and not questionably by the marketers) — in short, data shielding with intuitive and powerful filtration control.
National security (e.g. keeping national secrets from public exposure) makes sense during the international competition of national formulas (and relevantly beyond to cover the competition of international formulas, if applicable due to establishing relations with at least one sufficiently advanced alien civilization), but the value of the veil of (inter)national security cannot be decoupled from the value of the (too often publicly unfamiliar) veil of personal privacy. To righteously protect both veils (critically reminding you that balance is needed for stability), objectively defining harm needs optimal precision.
In another hopefully upcoming edit, the importance of societal flexibility (the macrocosm of athletic flexibility) will be more strongly and fittingly addressed. That includes opening the metaphorical door to increasing modularity (i.e. proper segmentation to minimize the reach of damage, and to create more flexibility) as a necessary survival mechanism against relatively large and unhealthily complexly entrenched constructs (e.g. any business deemed “too big to fail”).
An unalienable right to liberty is synonymous with responsible flexibility — so that right can never by reconciled with the oligarchically coerced rigidity forming any of the many styles of unhealthy mass tension and release (i.e. violence and other abuses to offset that tension) worldwide.
Either liberty is unalienable or not. There is factually no possible middle ground. Even one exception to the unalienable property of that right starts the “slippery slope” of exceptions (to “protect the children” and so on) that ultimately negates that critical property needed to genuinely protect us all.
We Need You
You (among us all) are logically responsible for ensuring society makes the correct choice — firmly publicly insisting upon the full application of a genuinely unalienable right to liberty.
Liberty Shield is not about igniting a violent revolution (including demonizing law enforcement, the mainstream media, and marketers), and is not yet another ‘us versus them’ campaign subjectively distinguished by drawing financial lines (or such).
Liberty Shield is about maturely applying righteous (not merely corruptly claimed) American patriotism (and irrefutable reasoning expressed to peacefully encourage international adoption of oblaw) to reasonably reinforce the primary need to oppose law abuse, so continuing the principle that led to the violent revolution in which our Founding Fathers put their lives (and their loved ones’ lives) on the line against that grossest form of abuse.
If you embrace and want to strengthen our Liberty Shield, then sharing this piece makes prime sense. Also naturally growing Liberty Shield by way of your own uncorrupted scientific method application into finding and creating certainties to form better legal constructs is similarly sensible.
Liberty Shield is nascent, and like all technological innovations in their earliest stages, its popular application probably remains fairly temporally distant, but that in no way diminishes the critical value from now exercising Liberty Shield (even if minimally initially to gain just enough traction for perpetual public momentum).
If you support Liberty Shield, you are a scientific constitutionalist — briefly described as one strictly applying the scientific method to form more precise and concise language constructs, so intrinsically improving education, law, and ultimately health. Note that I explicitly objectively define a scientific constitutionalist to avoid the detrimental muddying of similar terms (e.g. conservative, liberal, and so on).
Never to be pretentious about it, but logically these informational roots seemingly threaten people leveraging power corruptly — actually, it serves to “light a fire under their asses” to preferably help them break free from their reckless denial (one of the symptoms of addiction) tragically bringing them towards their inevitable and (perhaps extremely) harsh encounter with the Rule of Reality. Therefore censorship and/or unethical edits are logically assumed to happen to defend corruption, if this (or any other) information becomes sufficiently popularly embraced.
Therefore logic concludes a critical need for informational redundancy for protection (e.g. see violently ruined Library of Alexandria — Wikipedia entry), so if you believe in Liberty Shield, then feel free to copy and paste these informational roots to your website (journal, and so on) with the title “Echo Liberty Shield” (and preferably include an MD5 or better hash of the text and the corresponding last modification date reflecting my latest update — i.e. August 7, 2016 — to help ensure informational purity).
A major reason why I solely uphold strictest application of the scientific method is the aforementioned popular embrace logically constitutes a perpetual public press for the unavoidable correction against corrupt edits. For prime example, if these words are ever edited to (or otherwise accidentally) form a logically inaccurate result, then such embrace will lead other beings to properly restore the only valid agenda — fully logically opposing abuse in any and all of its many forms without being ironically abusive.
That agenda includes best addressing our own inevitable abuses that form challenges and opportunities by the proper navigation of those abuses strictly without intentionally direct rights infringement (the epitome of resilience).
Plans for more formal structuring of Liberty Shield are being considered, but due to my very busy status on many fronts, my Liberty Shield involvement (simply encouraging the natural growth of this entertainment ecosystem) must remain basic at least for now.
With respect to my Liberty Shield participation, I leverage and promote Liberty Shield in my posts authored in the Liberty Shield branch of this journal primarily to help expose law abuse in the context of properly ending Certain Drug Prohibition (while referring to these informational roots for complete grounding) — all to stir up whatever public resonance possible to uphold our Liberty Shield logically necessarily for posterity.
Upon righteously believing in upholding and strengthening our Liberty Shield to a degree worthy of a much-appreciated financial boost for our solid leverage against corruption, here are two ways to inexpensively directly express that wonderful degree:
1. ‘Tip Jar’ Subscribe to Liberty Shield (only $1 yearly securely by PayPal):
Why only $1 yearly?
Basically anyone can afford that nicely modest rate (only about $.08 monthly), and as anyone logically has sound reason to uphold our Liberty Shield, only $1 yearly logically awesomely results in an enormous amount of resources received annually (responsibly allocating such resources to reputable and fitting interests being a challenging duty that I accept).
A major Liberty Shield goal is achieving a serious international subscriber base, so we can publicly leverage that statistic (and obviously the generated resources) to strengthen our Liberty Shield for better law and public safety (naturally including better science, education, and healthcare).
This simple and convenient subscription option makes topnotch sense towards strengthening (y)our Liberty Shield, so please feel free to take a brief moment now to subscribe for only $1 yearly.
2. Buy our official Liberty Shield shirt:
Many shirt styles (e.g. short or long sleeve shirts, hoodies, and so on for men and women) are available for you there. Select an image above, and then select the “See all styles” button when you arrive at Zazzle’s website.
If you cannot afford (or do not want to pay) Zazzle’s typically high one-off price, simply wait for their next big sale (sometimes even 50% off) — or read this journal, because I will post notices about their best sales (30% off or more) when I can.
Thank you for any support you provide us all.
From casually cool embrace of the simple message to defend liberty, through hardcore legal geeks dedicated to lifelong efforts to carefully objectively improve language, you are always welcome to join us on our positive mission to best secure civilized liberty for a maximally positive posterity.