Law vs Chaos

  • by Gitabushi

When I started playing Dungeons & Dragons, the full Alignment Chart was the norm. Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos.  Lawful Good was a straitlaced Bible Thumper (even though “Christian” wasn’t really a concept in the game), Chaotic Good was Robin Hood, Chaotic Evil was a serial killer, and Lawful Evil was Fascism.

Law = Order, and Chaos = Randomness, in the way our group understood it.

I always gravitated toward Chaotic Good. Ever since reading the Hardy Boys, I felt I identified with Joe, maybe because I was blonde as a kid, and he was impetuous, so impetuous seemed good to me, and impetuous is Chaotic.  But, of course, I wanted to be a good person and do good things.

One of the fun moments was a flame war in the D&D community over Tarl Calbot’s alignment: when he turned complete selfish and amoral, was he Chaotic Evil, or True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, or even Neutral Good.  Without the internet, the arguments raged in the letters section across a half-dozen Dragon magazines.  Good times, good times.

I guess I didn’t learn anything from that, but with a few more decades added to my life total, I now feel like “Neutral” is a dodge. Anything except for the most extreme stance could be seen as “neutral”.  And who decides what “balance” between the two is?  One of the compelling arguments about Cabot was, if I recall correctly, “If you really don’t care whether you do good or evil, aren’t you really just evil?”

While I was heavily into D&D, I read the Chronicles of Amber. This series was probably the first (and maybe only) book/series I’ve read that talked about universe-scale battles of Law vs Chaos that left an impression on me.

Before I continue, let me link some other mentions of Law vs Chaos you should consider checking out before continuing, because there’s a chance I might vaguely reference some of the things mentioned in these posts. And if don’t, they are still good posts, and I get paid by the word, so I might as well pad this out:

More Amber

Appendix N Review

Three Thoughts on Three Hearts and Three Lions

Broken Sword

Mumble Mumble and Chaos

Jeffro on 3H3L

One thing I got from Amber, and seems to be a theme in any book that talks about Law vs Chaos, is that Law is generally Good, and Chaos is generally bad.  Law is order, predictability, security. Chaos is destruction, unexpectedness, insecurity.  The takeaway from Amber is that they have been battling against Chaos taking over, but maybe Chaos isn’t all bad; without Chaos, there would be no growth, no change…everything would calcify and become static.  Jeffro points out that “Chaos is not always synonymous with Evil”, and that’s about the best anyone says about it.

Okay, that was all build up. Because, as at least a few people expect, I’m here to say that Chaos is actually closer to good, and we should be saying that “Law is not always synonymous with evil.”

Part of it might be where you draw the line, where you see the neutral point, what you think moderation is.

But here’s what I think the key is: everyone is looking at it on a Macro level: the Universe. Forces. Everyone is one One Side or the Other.

That is a Law perspective.

Law is collective.  Law is Authoritative. Law is an imposition of Universality.

From the Law perspective, you are either with us or against us. You will do what we tell you, or you’ll do what someone else tells you.

But what is the greatest original gift God gave to us? Yes, salvation via the Gift of His Son was the greatest gift ever, but I’m talking the original gift, the one that made the greater gift necessary.

Free Will. Agency. The ability to choose.  This is what we have in common with God.

One of the problems with discussing Law vs Chaos, or even Good vs Evil, is when they are discussed in Manichean terms, as if they were opposite poles, with a midpoint that is neutral between them.

But as CS Lewis persuasively explains, Evil is not the opposite of Good, it is the absence of Good, like Dark is the absence of Light, or Cold is the absence of Heat.  When the light is dim, you don’t say, well, there’s 10% light and 90% darkness.  When you turn up the illumination, the darkness doesn’t resist. Where there is light, there is no darkness.

So you can’t really mix Law and Chaos.  You can’t really moderate Law and Chaos.  You can’t really find a balance point between Law and Chaos.

What you can do, perhaps, is see how they are two sides of the same coin.

We have the Wisdom of Crowds, where the average opinion of thousands of individuals is usually more correct than the most informed expert.  I am still somewhat stunned regarding the old McDonald’s model: they knew that they could draw a circle, and if there were enough of the right type of family demographics within that circle, the McDonald’s would be successful. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a McDonald’s shut down (although I’m sure some have, if the area demographics changed too much). And they knew that once those demographics were met, they could pre-make burgers and fries and hold them for no more than 10 minutes, and still have to throw out minimal food, because they knew when people would be coming in to eat, and pretty much what they would order, to within +/- some incredibly low percentage.

On the other hand, we have Leftist Totalitarianism, where people seek power to impose authoritarian rules on others, and once doing so, the shortages and measures taken to maintain the social order make it impossible to figure out what the next shortage will be, or when the Secret Police will come for you or your family.

Putting this into a political context, you could say, “Who wouldn’t want Law & Order and reject Chaos and Anarchy?”

But I prefer to see it as, “Who wouldn’t want Agency? Who wouldn’t want individual rights?  Who would want your options restricted to only the few approved ones allowed?”

To me, that’s the Law side of Law vs Chaos: you lose agency. You lose self-government. You lose options.

For freedom to mean anything, you need the freedom to fail, the freedom to make some wrong choices.

Since thinking of this, when I hear Law vs Chaos, I hear Collective vs Individual, Totalitarian vs Libertarian.

So instead of trying to moderate this on a macro level, as in, let’s have some laws and some freedom, and maybe they’ll balance out, I would prefer to find the balance on a micro level: I have agency and the liberty to do what I want, so I will self-govern and choose to exist in harmony with others who also self-govern.

Of course, that will be insufficient. People don’t always understand their own abilities and limits, and they often don’t have the empathy to see how their actions negatively impact others. Plus, on a micro level, people often try to impose order on their children, their subordinates, or people they feel have lower status than them (Law rears its ugly head!). So we do need government to to resolve those mistakes, misunderstandings, and issues.

However, we should see government as a necessary failure, a safety net that helps mitigate the failures of Chaos on an individual level.

Maybe that’s neutral, maybe that’s moderation.  One of the eternal problems on questions like these is “Where do you draw the line?”, but that’s a topic for another day.

The point today is merely to get you considering the notion that perhaps Chaos is more synonymous with Good than Law is.  I’m sure I’ve convinced no one.  Hopefully, I’ve made you think.

 

If I were a POTUS Candidate

  • by Gitabushi

Here are a few of the planks of my platform:

Socialism requires 100% participation to work. If anyone is exempt, there is no equality, and someone is exploiting the system. However, the basic nature of humanity is to disagree. Different values, different goals, and different experiences result in a wide variety of opinions on any topic, and on all topics.  In fact, some people will disagree with the majority just to assert their individuality.  Therefore, there will never be 100% support for Socialism. Which means that enacting Socialism can only be done by force.  As such, Socialism is antithetical to the principles, norms, standards, institutions, and traditions of the United States. I will work with the finest minds in the nation to find ways for you to attain the sense of security you falsely think Socialism provides.

Socialism is a poison pill in a candy shell. Unnecessary and untimely death accompanies its ascendance into any government.

Capitalism, for all its flaws, harnesses the power of selfishness to improve everyone’s lives. The free market cannot sidestep the laws of physics and supply/demand, but the combination of Capitalism and Free Markets have lifted more people from poverty than any other system, by several orders of magnitude.

Free Market Capitalism offers you choices.  You may not like the choices. The choices you want might not be currently available to you. But with Free Market Capitalism, you always have choices for the mix of effort, comfort and risk you feel comfortable with.

Free Market Capitalism’s biggest failures occur when someone manipulates information to deceive. Failures also occur when the government picks winners and losers.

I will work with the finest minds in the nation to use government power only to ensure you have the most accurate information possible, and not make decisions for you.

Abortion is a tragic and unnecessary act that results in the death of a unique human being.  Nevertheless, a vocal minority in the United States considers it a vital right, and the US political system is designed to protect minority rights. I will work with the finest minds in the United States and abroad to create a society in which no one feels abortion is necessary ever again. Until that day arrives, I will work to limit abortion to comport with reasonable standards of responsibility and accountability.

Taxes are an unfortunate necessity.  However, centuries of history demonstrate that rather than raising taxes to provide services, governments provide services as a pretext to raise taxes. It is a simple fact that government wastes money. Merely paying the salaries of bureaucrats lowers the value of tax revenue spent in services, and most of the services provided by government would be better accomplished if the money had not been taxed in the first place, and for expenses individuals cannot afford, via charity.  I will work with the finest minds in the United States to cut spending to create surpluses that pay off our debt, and then can lower taxes.  My eventual goal is the elimination of all income taxes, so that all the federal government requirements are funded through corporate taxes and some necessary tariffs. Although the federal government should not interfere in State processes, I will work with states to eliminate property taxes, to fulfill the American Dream of owning property, rather than just renting it from the local government.

Self-Defense is the most basic, fundamental right that underpins all the benefits of liberty in the United States.  As such, I will work to remove many of the infringements made on the Second Amendment that actually work to make individuals and society less safe.  We will move cautiously, to ensure that citizens of all races and economic levels are able to peacefully exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Citizenship is a valuable status, and should be seen as such by all residents in the US.  I will work to reform the Permanent Residence system to discourage de facto dual citizenship. I will work with the finest minds in the United States to emphasize and strengthen the benefits of citizenship to encourage every resident of the US to seek citizenship as soon as possible. For example, perhaps income taxes could be levied only on Visa holders and Permanent Residents, but not US Citizens.

Illegal Immigration will be halted. I will use every power available to me to end and reverse illegal immigration. E-verify will be mandatory, I will work with Congress to pass laws encouraging collection agencies to seek repayment of education and medical costs incurred by illegal aliens, illegal aliens will not be able to obtain driver’s licenses, and we will halt the unConstitutional practice of Illegal Alien Sanctuary Cities.  The IRS will be ordered to take action against stolen identities and Social Security Number fraud. This will result in increased prosperity and employment for US Citizens.  Once our borders are secured and illegal aliens are unable to live comfortably in the US, I will work with the finest minds in the United States to increase legal immigration and guest worker programs that serve the needs of the poorest Americans.

Medical Care is a source of worry and instability in all societies. The demand for medical care is unlimited, but supply is finite. No one will ever be able to obtain the quality and quantity of medical care they want. Most government medical care systems provide an illusion of care by lowering the quality of care to increase the quantity.  The bottom line is, to the government, you are a statistic. Your life has the most value to you and to your loved ones.  The decision for medical care for you and your loved ones should be a decision made only by you, with the input of your doctor, based on what you can afford.  If you include an insurer in the process, you potentially can afford more care, but you also subject yourself to the restrictions of what the insurer will improve, and they will always attempt to limit their costs.  This is even more true if the state or federal government is involved, with the added burden of administrative waste.

It is painful to recognize that you cannot afford all the care you would like to have. It is painful to have someone close to you die when there is treatment you cannot afford.  However, there is no solution that doesn’t involve gross inequality, or allow the politically-connected better care at the expense of everyone else.

As such, your medical care can only be based on what you can afford. If you want more care, you need to save more. If you cannot save more, you must earn more by working harder. If you cannot earn more by working harder, you must find ways to increase your value to employers to earn more. If you cannot increase your value to employers, then you must develop rich relationships with family, and decide among yourselves how to pay for the care your family wants.

If these solutions are not acceptable, then you must rely on charity or insurance.

There are no solutions, only trade-offs, and you will not be able to get all the quality medical care you want.  It is better to understand that now.

I will work with the finest minds in the United States to establish a nationwide, true Catastrophic event insurance that provides a defined level of care (i.e., generic drugs and cost-scaled treatment).  I will also work with Congress to provide incentives for corporations and universities to research new medicine, techniques, and technology, and to ease the rules for voluntary experimental medical care. The rich will continue to underwrite experimental medical treatment for the benefit of all.

 

Okay, that’s all I can think of right now.  What can I improve?  What other topics should I address?  Maybe future installments of this will address Free Speech absolutism and National Defense.

The Left Seeks One Thing: Power

  • by Gitabushi

There are always different ways to look at things.  You can look at things from a different angle or from a different paradigm.

Take the human body. A doctor learns many things about you by looking in your ears, throat, eyes, taking your blood pressure, blood sample, etc.

Or he could do a CAT scan or MRI.

Or he could consider your health from a system perspective: endocrine system, nervous system, vascular system, etc.

Or he could cut you into 1″ slices and learn from that perspective, but that’s usually only done to cadavers, in my experience.

So to understand the Left and how it acts in the US, there are different ways to look at it and attempt to understand it.

I could say “them”, but the Left does aspire to Borg-like levels of collectiveness.  And they do act as a group in a manner different than on the individual level, and I think it is useful, at times, to treat the Left as one entity.

So I can say that the Left is dened by its committed and earnest belief that everything in the world is Rule or Be Ruled, and they intend to Rule you.

I could note that the Left doesn’t believe in democracy at all, despite talking about it all the time, because to them, democracy is just a tool to get what they want.  This doesn’t contradict that they fervently want to enact a Rule or Be Ruled paradigm everywhere, it’s just a different aspect.

I could also say, as I do in the title, that “the Left seeks one thing: Power” and still be fully accurate.

Or I could point out what they want the power *for*.

The motivation for the Left wanting power is they want the power to avoid unwanted consequences and, whenever and where-ever possible, shift all negative consequences onto their enemies…which is anyone that doesn’t join their hive-mind collective.

See, the Left doesn’t like consequences, accountability, or democracy.  So they set up the CFPB to exist and act outside of federal control.  That way, their loyal Leftist CFPB director could punish capitalism, reduce freedom, and fund Leftist activities without any way a pesky GOP POTUS or Congress could do anything to even slow it down, much less stop it.  It is a travesty that it even existed this long, and it is a travesty that it isn’t a slam dunk the SCOTUS will strike this anti-democratic institution down.

The Left doesn’t want accountability for when its leaders engage in unethical or illegal behavior, but exploits its claims of love for democracy to protect its potential POTUS nominees.  Because Trump is automatically wrong and anything he does automatically violates norms and is impeachable, and the only thing that ever needs to be done is to figure out how to characterize his statements or actions in a way that proves his perfidy, even if it is exactly like what every other POTUS has done in office going back several decades.

We really need to crush the Left, because they are going over the Cliffs of Insanity and taking the nation with them.

maxresdefault

 

John Hayward Nails it Again

  • by Gitabushi

I recently realized that if I “logout” from the twitter page I had autoloaded upon opening my browser, I can go check certain accounts.

So there are a few I check on.  One is John Hayward.  I find his thoughts brilliant and insightful. Nearly every day he has a tweet-thread that makes me think, or states a non-obvious truth with more clarity than I’ve seen anywhere else, or both.

This is what I tried to do on Twitter, to varying levels of success.  That is what I am now trying to do here on the blog, and what I will try to do in my fiction writing.

However, this post is to call attention to John Hayward’s thread yesterday:

I find this whole thread completely correct.

The thing I wish he would have added (and I’m sure he would agree with) is that his thesis is fully demonstrated in the Democrat Party POTUS campaign, particularly in the debates.

Moderates are appalled by the blatant Leftist proclamations, while conservatives are chortling with glee as they plan meme and advertisement campaigns.  Both treat the open Leftist campaigning as some sort of Kinsleyan gaffe.

It isn’t.

This is the nature of politics today. They aren’t campaigning for voter support, much less grass roots support.  They are campaigning for donor support, and propaganda editorial support.

Trump winning was a victory for the Right in rolling back Obama’s transformation of the US, but it was also a victory for the Left in that it fully implemented their tribal allegiances and alliances.

They don’t have to convince Democrat voters. Democrat voters will vote for who they are told to vote for. They need to be chosen by the Elite. If chosen, the Elite will give them money (most of it skimmed from taxpayer-funded Leftist programs and insider trading from same) to broadcast propaganda, and the Leftist propaganda machine will have an easier time lying and distorting in their cause.

They don’t need to have a good plan or a good program, because their cause is just. They are opposing White Supremacists, Racists, Sexists, and Trump.

They are justified in subverting and betraying the Rule of Law, because Trump. They will get all the LIVs, all the GOP who hate Trump, all the Democrats who vote as they are told to keep the gravy flowing, and the Leftist bureaucrats will manufacture more Democrat voters from the illegal alien pipeline.

That’s why the Democrat POTUS campaign seems crazy.  They aren’t.  They just have their anti-democratic system fully up and running now.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come Again (Updated)

  • by Gitabushi

Conservatives and Patriots are in somewhat of an uncomfortable position right now.

John_Meintz,_punished_during_World_War_I_-_NARA_-_283633_-_restored

This tweet-thread explains a good portion of the discomfort, but not all of it.

The part it doesn’t cover is how everything seems to be all-or-nothing.  The military takes an oath to defend the US Constitution. Obama clearly violated the US Constitution when he deliberately attempted to legislate with EOs. He flatly stated he would act *because* the GOP-controlled Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted.

The military didn’t depose him.

Did every single military member violate their oath, then?

What was the military supposed to do?  Throw him out of office? Assassinate him?

Well, what is the military supposed to do when an unConstitutional law is written?  Attack the legislators who wrote it?  How would they even know a law is unConstitutional until/unless the Supreme Court strikes it down?

Bottom line: the US military has no role in determining what is or isn’t Constitutional. And there is no military role in resolving violations of the US Constitution.

But the same conundrum faces the citizenry, particularly now:

What are we supposed to do when the Elite violate the US Constitution with the Deep Coup? What are we supposed to do when the federal government bureaucracy has become politicized and uses tax dollars and federal government authority on behalf of one party to achieve goals of violating and reducing our individual liberty?

Normally, citizens are supposed to then participate in the political process, giving power to those who will use political means to punish the violators within the restrictions outlined in the US Constitution.  Except, what if the violations are machinations by political actors to suppress or ignore out participation in the political process?

What if the Supreme Court rules something Constitutional that is plainly *not* Constitutional?

The answer I’ve gotten before is basically: Revolution. The Roots of the Tree of Liberty needs some watering with the blood of tyrants.

But nobody is doing that, are they?  And if someone assassinated Rep. Nancy Pelosi tomorrow, they would be rightfully accused of and prosecuted for murder.

If the violations we’ve already endured are not enough to spur armed resistance, then what will be?

But if we don’t actually form a revolution, is it legal? Or is it just murder?  When does it stop being simple murder and start being an act of liberty?

I think most people are not acting because it is a really terrifying line to cross.  So we hesitate, hoping we can see some resolution without resorting to deadly violence.

While you mull that, I’d like to introduce another aspect:

I’ve often said that one of the problems of our society is it is no longer permissible to punch someone who is being a public jerk. No matter how much someone may deserve a punch, you risk being arrested and convicted of assault. Our society has become degenerate enough that if a guy openly flirts with your wife, and you punch him, you’re the one in the wrong.

But let’s say simple assault doesn’t get prosecuted. We let it go, so that direct responses to being a jerk can help make a more civil society. Would that happen?  Or would we just end up with stronger men having even more freedom to be jerks to everyone around them?

Enter the idea whose time has come again, I think.

macaronymaking.jpg

Tarring and feathering.

It does no real harm. It is uncomfortable, and a serious hassle for the person tarred and feathered. But it doesn’t scar, it doesn’t wound, and it serves as an excellent warning to other people doing things similar to the original tarring and feathering recipient.

It *is* an assault and battery, but it is done by a group. I can’t tar and feather Rep. Adam Schiff, but a couple dozen of us can.  If a couple dozen of us participate, it will be harder for Leftist authorities to prosecute.  The action gains some measure of appropriateness based on the fact that it is a form of democracy: it is citizens coming together to punish a politician for their political activity.

Even aside from the somewhat-dubious proposition that there would be some legal safety in numbers, I could handle a few months in jail for participating in the tarring and feathering of a politician. I could explain it to my family. I would not feel any shame or worry I had something actually wrong.

While I don’t want Lois Lerner to retain her pension, and would like to see her in jail, I would be somewhat mollified if she were tarred and feathered.

[Edited to add this paragraph:]

In contrast, murdering a politician is indefensible. You can try to claim it isn’t wrong due to Watering the Roots of the Tree of Liberty all you want, it is still *murder*.  It would risk decades in jail, possibly the rest of your life, with no guarantee it would have any effect at all in even slowing the Leftist destruction of US Rule of Law, much less reversing it. No wonder everyone just sits around talking about revolution, but no one does anything.

There is a significant drawback/downside, however. The Left loves collective action, and they are copycats. They already try to intimidate GOP politicians through threatening actions. They’ve driven Ted Cruz out of a restaurant and threatened Mitch McConnell. If tarring and feathering comes back in vogue, the Left would attempt to tar and feather conservative politicians for actually following the Constitution.

There should be a way to resolve or prevent this.  One thing that comes to mind is that the Left has no sense of proportion or patience. They wouldn’t have the capability of organizing a relatively non-violent tarring and feathering, they would include actual criminal behavior of beating, and maybe even lynching.

However, while I don’t want to encourage the Left to copycat escalation into harming GOP politicians, I am also not responsible for their actions and immaturity. It would be easy to legalize tarring and feathering while still coming down harshly on anyone who went beyond that, and that would mean prosecuting Leftists almost exclusively.

Or maybe that’s idealist wishcasting.

Thoughts?

 

 

A Few Uncomfortable (Pithy) Truths

  • by Gitabushi

Happy, confident people don’t vote Democrat.

Developments that are good for Democrats’ electoral prospects are bad for the bulk of US citizens.

To the US Left, “democracy” is getting what they want, and any obstacle to what they want is an attack on “their” democracy.

The Left intends to decide for you what you want, in all things, forever.

 

Got any more?

Without Evidence

  • by Gitabushi

One of the most remarkable developments of Trump-era news media is the “Without Evidence” editorializing.

That’s a new one.

I’m sure you’re all familiar with some of the traditional ways Leftist journalists editorialize in ostensibly objective new items:

“Some say” = “the report wants to level personal criticism”
“This comes at a time when” = “when the reporter would rather talk about a different issue that hurts the politician in question”

This “without evidence” makes for a very clunky chyron or title, but the MSM is willing to make that sacrifice to prepare the rhetorical battlespace against Trump.

The formulation is pretty much always “Trump claims, without evidence, _____”.

I have never seen them use this for another POTUS before.

“Obama claims, without evidence, that the police acted stupidly.”
“Obama claims, without evidence, that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
“Obama claims, without evidence, that his administration investigated the IRS and found no wrongdoing.”
“Obama claims, without evidence, that his administration was free of scandals.”
“Clinton claims, without evidence, he feels our pain.”
“Clinton claims, without evidence, that he did not have sex with that woman. Monica Lewinsky.”

See, a journalist or news organization with integrity might try to actually find what evidence Trump has to claim what he’s claiming.

But the Leftist news industry cannot accept that Trump might be correct about anything.

So they go about beclowning themselves with making every news item an editorial of how bad the orange man is.

article-3314-1
From the Babylon Bee article “CNN unveils new slogan”: https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-unveils-new-slogan-orange-man-bad

What are you favorite Leftist MSM weasel-ish editorial phrases?

 

related: