The Rationale of the Proto Criteria
Following is a light exposition concerning the Rationale used to produce the verbiage of the Formal Proclamation of the Proto Criteria.
Because of the aforementioned Process of Qualification, I will begin with the Third Criterion (The Right to Pursue Happiness) and work backwards to the First Criterion (The Right to Life – aka The Proto Criterion). This section contains segments and terminology from some of my other writings, particularly my book, The Final Religion.
The Right to Pursue Happiness
When Thomas Jefferson penned the final draft of Declaration of Independence, he stated that men have the unalienable right to the pursuit of Happiness. Of the three unalienable rights he mentioned, including Life and Liberty, this particular right seems to be the most ambiguous. After all, Happiness is a rather subjective term: what makes one person Happy doesn’t necessarily make another person Happy, and vice-versa. This means that it’s difficult, if not outright contentious, to attempt to define exactly what Jefferson meant.
“Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson himself never explained his use of the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. However, he was almost certainly influenced by George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights (adopted June 12, 1776), which referred to “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety” (Section 1).
Jefferson’s rough draft of the Declaration used the expression, “…life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;” and in the final version of the Declaration it was altered slightly to “…Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”” – The Jefferson Monticello
Source:http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/pursuit-happiness
A genuine grammatical analysis of the phrase, however, indicates the Ambiguity arises from the fact that most people try to interpret or decipher the meaning of this Right based upon the word “Happiness.” Happiness, you see, is not what this Right is really about as derived by the sentence structure. It does not guarantee Happiness. It is not called the Right to Happiness. It does not say that Happiness (in itself) is an Unalienable Right. It is specifically about the PURSUIT of Happiness, indicating that Happiness, if it is to exist, must be achieved by the efforts of the individual in accordance with their own opinions. This means the Right to Pursue Happiness is more about the Right to Work than it is about a feeling of Euphoria. It also means that a correct interpretation of the Right to Pursue Happiness hinges on the Objective meaning of the word Pursue rather than the Subjective meaning of the word Happiness.
The word Pursue is, of course, a Verb meaning to Work Toward, Chase After, Cultivate, or Procure. Effort is implied, indicating that the Object of Happiness is neither a Gift nor an Entitlement, and shall only be experienced directly proportional to the success of the effort put in to obtain it. And since Happiness, the Goal of the Pursuit, is a purely Personal State of Mind, it means the Goal is ultimately Subjective – a Matter of Opinion.
Therefore, if the word Pursue means to Work Toward, and the word Happiness is a Subjective Goal, then the Right to Pursue Happiness can be reworded as the Right to Work Toward a Subjective Goal. It can also be reworded as any of the following statements and remain true to its original intent:
“A Human Being shall have the Right to a Personal Endeavor…”
“A Human Being shall have the Right to Work for their Own Interests…”
“A Human Being shall have the Right to Work toward a Personal Goal…”
And finally, in what is the most colloquial way to put it, “A Human Being shall have the Right to Work at making the best possible Life they can achieve for themselves…”
Wherever the interpretations and applications of these rewordings intersect, that is the meaning of the Right to Pursue Happiness. Wherever the interpretations and applications of these rewordings do not intersect, that is not the Right to Pursue Happiness. Let there be no misunderstanding as to what the Right to Pursue Happiness is all about.
Furthermore, we realize that the Right to Pursue Happiness is essentially a Formula with a Variable. Basically, it ensures that a person has the Right to Work toward a Subjective Goal, where the Subjective Goal is a Variable (to be determined by the individual) that must be qualified by the Right of Liberty and the Right to Life.
In other words, a Human Being shall have the Right to Work toward x, so long as x is qualified by the Right of Liberty and the Right to Life.
The Right to Pursue Happiness doesn’t give a person the right to do absolutely anything that makes them Happy, however, only those activities that are hierarchically qualified by the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life. Certainly, one cannot Pursue a Happiness that involves Murder, Injustice, or Deceit.
I cannot say whether Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Committee of Five were consciously aware of the Hierarchical qualifying Nature of the Proto Criteria, since they were building upon the philosophy of John Locke and modifying the language of the Virginia Declaration of Rights by George Mason, but I firmly believe that on a subconscious level they were aware. If men have Unalienable Rights such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, it stands to reason that these rights would be qualified by one another in some order of Applicability; they cannot be in conflict. Logic and Reason would dictate that the Right to Pursue Happiness cannot come at the expense of another’s Rights to Life and Liberty.
Following is the latest and most comprehensive version of the Right to Pursue Happiness I have been able to construct. I believe it is both concise and clear, and remains true to the intent of the original formula.
A Human Being shall have the Right to Work toward a Subjective Goal, so long as they Respect the Right of Liberty, so long as they Revere the Right to Life. A Human Being shall Not be made to Underachieve or Transgress their own Conscience, Nor shall They be forced to put aside Confidence in their own Abilities or coerced to Corrupt Themselves according to their Faith.
The Right to Liberty
The Right to Liberty begins with the question, “What is Freedom?”
Most people don’t really have a very sophisticated definition of Freedom – they just think of it in terms of being able to do whatever you want so long as you don’t hurt anyone else. But this is essentially a Thoughtless and Juvenile definition of Liberty of the type any self-absorbed teenager might formulate. I wasn’t about to institutionally describe The Right to Liberty in such a puerile and superficial manner, it wouldn’t be worthy of such an important and Preeminent Criterion; I knew instinctively that a more Profound definition would be required.
Then I remembered something I’d read in the Bible…
“To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”” John 8:31-36 NIV
From these words I came to realize that Truth and Freedom are intimately connected, one does not exist without the other. Freedom is not the right or the ability to engage in Hedonism, nor is Freedom expressed by the Wiccan Rede, “an it harm none, do as ye will.” Freedom is the right and the ability to Do what is Just and Embrace what is True. In other words, Freedom is about the fulfilment of Truth and Justice: the ability to know the Truth and do the Right thing.
In the end, we are all Slaves to “sin” whether we want to be or not. Sin, as every serious Bible scholar knows, is “the Missing of the Mark.” In other words, Sin is Error: Imperfection: Incorrectness: being Wrong. What this means is that we are essentially Slaves to Error – our own Errors and other people’s Errors. We can never be truly Free unless we all “Hit the Mark” with regard to Truth and Justice.
I fully understand that people will probably never agree about what the Truth is, but that doesn’t matter. Whether people agree or disagree about what the Truth is, the Institutional definition of the Right to Liberty must be what I have written, for it is based on the Absolute aspects of Truth as derived from the Logic of the Prime Axiom. This means the Right to Liberty utilizes the Absolute Definition of Truth whether we can comprehend it or not. The problem isn’t that the Right to Liberty calls for Truth and Justice, the problem resides in the fact that people can’t always determine what Truth and Justice are.
A Human Being shall have the Right to Do everything that is Just and Believe everything that is True, so long as they Revere the Right to Life. A Human Being shall Not be made to Tolerate the Suppression of Truth, nor be forced to Commit an Injustice.
Question: What prevents us from being able to do what is Just and believe what is True?
Answer: Opinions, Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies based on Lies, Errors, and a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life! These are the things which prevent us from being able to do what is Just and believe what is True. With this in mind, we can quantify Freedom, and if we can quantify Freedom we can take actions to secure it.
The Indices of Freedom
Freedom is an estate that exists both Internally and Externally. It must live in your Heart as well as the World around you in order to be realized.
Internal Freedom is measured by a Passionate Regard for the Sanctity of Human Life. Without a Passionate Regard for the Sanctity of Human Life a Human Being can never be Free; they cannot do what is Just or believe what is True because their own Opinions lead them into a state of Personal Bondage.
External Freedom, on the other hand, is measured in terms of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies. External Freedom is inversely proportional to the number of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies a person is forced to endure. The fewer the number of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies a person has to endure, the more Freedom they possess. The greater the number of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies a person has to endure, the less Freedom they possess.
Obligations are those entities for which a person is Financially and Ethically bound.
Regulations are those authoritative decrees which a person must obey.
Dependencies are those estates where a person is void of self-determination.
Since the parameters of External Freedom are tangible, society can actually do something to affect them. The Human Heart, however, can only be affected by the Individual to whom it belongs. This means that the parameters of External Freedom are the most practical to discuss and deal with.
Let us examine each Index individually.
Regulations
For the sake of this dissertation, I am defining the word Law (i.e. Regulation) as: an authoritative proclamation concerning what we can and cannot do, what we must or must not do, and how things should or should not be.
Did I miss anything? No, really, did I miss anything? I’m extremely confident, given a moment of reflection, that I can apply this definition to virtually every entity or impulse that’s called a Law. I do not subscribe to the notion that the definition of Law is impossible to ascertain or that is a Subjective issue. In the end, all laws state what we can and cannot do, what we must or must not do, and how things should or should not be.
While I’m satisfied this establishes what Laws are, it doesn’t establish what Laws are for. I mean, this will give us a working definition of a Law, but it doesn’t tell us why we would want to craft such a thing in the first place.
Once again, I turned to the Bible and I found some verses that provide an insight for the Purpose of Law,
“Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”” Matthew 22:34-40 NIV
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35 NIV
These words indicate that the Purpose of Law is to be found in the expression of Love: The Law exists to elucidate the Principles of Love (the Golden Rule). In other words, the Law stipulates what we can and cannot do, what we must and must not do, and how things should or should not be in order to achieve the objective of Love (i.e. giving Love, not receiving Love… that is another matter).
So ultimately, the point of any Regulation is to show people how they should demonstrate their love for one another in a given situation. If a Regulation goes beyond this intent, it becomes either superfluous or oppressive. Excessive Regulation is a sign that the original intent of Law, the perpetual instruction to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, has been forgotten.
Regulations for “Problem Solving”
A Problem is a Subjective thing. What is a Problem to one person may not be a Problem to another and vice versa. Some Problems are Real and some Problems are Imaginary, manufactured by Propaganda or Deceit. Therefore, when Regulations are written or proposed to “solve problems,” people should expect to be Abused. Every Con Job begins with the announcement of a Problem, and every Con Artist presents a Solution for their own benefit; it’s how they make their living.
Regulators relish the opportunity to regulate, and when people come to them for solutions to their problems, they are more than eager to offer their services whether they are actually needed or not. The fact remains that some aspects of Life, even though they may appear to be problematic, don’t need to be (and shouldn’t be) regulated by the Government. It is a Function of the Unalienable Right to Human Freedom that an Individual has the Right to Solve and Determine their own Problems in a manner consistent with the Proto Criteria.
It is better to solve a problem without the intervention of a Regulator than it is to involve them. Every time a Regulator adds a regulation they grant themselves more authority – they give themselves another opportunity for Enforcement and Revenue, and you lose a little bit more Freedom because there is yet another part of your life where you must answer to them.
When Regulators start writing Laws to solve problems that the people should endeavor to solve themselves, it results in the aforementioned Authoritarian Creep.
What people who desire more and more Formal Regulations seem to forget, is that the Proto Criteria and the Principles of Love are already sufficient to cover every facet of Life. They don’t realize when they call for Regulators to provide a Solution for their Problems, the Regulators will use it as an opportunity to seize more Power and Control over their lives. Every Solution proposed by a Regulator is another bill of Obligations and Dependencies that when accumulated will eventually extinguish Human Freedom.
For example, consider the proposals to fix the “Problem of Gun Violence.”
The Proto Criteria and the Law already condemn Murder as the Ultimate Crime; it is punishable by Life Imprisonment throughout the entire country and even Death in certain states, yet several people are being killed every single day. What’s wrong with this picture? If Regulations can solve problems, why does Murder still exist? If there is such a strict prohibition against Murder, why do people still do it?
The fact is, People commit Murder because they have a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life: they HATE the Proto Criteria in their hearts and in their minds.
Can a Law that prevents Gun ownership eliminate a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life in a person’s heart? Is it possible to remove such an Opinion from a person’s heart by prohibiting them to possess firearms?
If a Murderer is not afraid of violating the Law by committing a Murder, why should they be afraid of violating the Law by possessing an illegal firearm? If they are already willing to commit a Capital Offense, why should they be worried about committing a non-Capital offense?
Then someone will say, “Well, at least we can stop them from committing violence with a gun.”
The problem isn’t that they use a Gun to commit Murder, the problem is that they commit Murder period; whether they use a gun or not is irrelevant.
A Solution for the existence of Guns is not a Solution for the existence of Violence. It is the existence of Violence that’s the Real Problem, not the existence of Guns. Guns do not cause Violence, Opinions cause Violence – specifically the notion that the lives of other Human Beings are not Sacred.
There is already a Law against Murder, but it will remain a problem as long as there are people with a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life. If there was no Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life there would be no Violence, with or without Guns.
Besides, who made a connection between the existence of Guns and the existence of Violence in the first place? Who invented the term “Gun Violence”? Guns are no more responsible for the existence of Violence than Jews were responsible for the problems of Pre-WW2 Germany. To make a connection between Guns and Violence is the same as making a connection between Jews and Economic Injustice in Nazi Germany; it is either Nefarious or Analytically Incompetent. We shouldn’t call it Gun Violence, we should start to call it VIOLENCE with a gun, VIOLENCE with a knife, VIOLENCE with a bomb, etc., to reorder the way we think about it and make us focus on the Real Issue.
Guns are simply machines, neither Good nor Evil.
In the 18th century, the King of England forbade colonists to own firearms because he wanted to prevent them from becoming a threat to his authority. He knew that an unarmed populace would not have the power to rebel or stand up to any nasty thing he might want to do to them according to his “Divine Right.”
Therefore, the Founding Fathers specifically acknowledged the People’s Right to keep and bear Arms so that they would have the physical power and ability to alter or abolish a Government that had become destructive of the Proto Criteria, if the need should ever arise.
“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.” Amendment 2, U.S. Constitution
Since Guns do not cause Violence, and their existence has nothing to do with the Motivation to Murder, the only ones to significantly benefit from the prohibition of Gun Ownership are Political Activists, Propagandists, Regulators, Government Officials, and Tyrants.
Another example of Superfluous and Redundant Regulation is the “Hate Crime.” Are the proponents of “Hate Crime” regulations saying that there’s a difference between killing a person for money and killing them because you don’t like something specific about them? Are they saying there should be a difference in the sentencing of convicted Murderers because of their Motives? Do they believe it’s not as bad to kill someone for Money as it is to kill them for their religion or the way they look? Is this what they’re saying?
It doesn’t make any difference to the Victims; they’re Dead.
Besides, the Root of ALL MURDER is a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life. Murder is committed because the life of one person stands in the way of (or is an end to) what another person wants.
Once again, the only ones to significantly benefit from labeling certain crimes as “Hate Crimes” are Political Activists, Propagandists, Regulators, Government Officials, and Tyrants.
Now, let’s talk about another class of abusive and oppressive Regulations.
Regulations of “Entanglement”
Regulations of Entanglement are superfluous regulations specifically designed to augment the power and authority of the Regulators themselves. In other words, they are Laws written by Legislators to increase the Obligations and Dependencies of the People simply because they can. Although Regulators will justify these kinds of Laws with persuasive logic, they will have little to do with the Security of the Proto Criteria.
Regulations of Entanglement are effectively attempts at Social Engineering by people in authority. Governments down through the ages have long been engaged in some form of Social Engineering to ensure the establishment of Cultures of Obligation and Dependency for their Leaders. An example of Entangled Legislation would be the institution of higher taxes on certain products such as cigarettes or soda to discourage their use.
Social Engineering, however, is not a proper function or noble objective of Government – it is not a legitimate Goal. The moment a Government begins engaging in Social Engineering it embarks on a road of Absolute Despotism, for the direction of Social Engineering is ALWAYS driven by someone’s or some group’s Opinion.
Anti-Proto Criterians will attempt to justify Social Engineering by claiming it’s the application of the scientific method for social concern. This, however, is a fatally flawed proposition, for it falsely implies that the scientific method would be applied objectively for such purposes, when that will never be the case. Science can and will be abused like anything else, and when it is employed to ascertain such a subjective entity as Social Concern, it definitely will be.
A Society that wishes to Secure and Enjoy the Right of Liberty must set a limit on the number of Regulations it is required to obey while resisting the Temptation to involve Regulators for solutions to problems they can solve themselves or that don’t really exist. Furthermore, a Society that wishes to Secure and Enjoy the Right of Liberty should reject any Regulation that expands or establishes Obligations and Dependencies on the Regulators themselves, for such a Regulation is automatically in violation of the Proto Criteria.
Obligations
Obligations are the Financial engines of Government and the Ethical expectations of Society. In Totalitarian and Abusive Schemes they are used to fund Dependencies from which they cannot be separated.
When a Government uses Obligations to fund Dependencies, it may be thought of as a System of Pets and Slaves that are ruled by a Master; there is no functional difference. The Master takes from the Slaves and gives to the Pets, and the Pets keep the Master in Power.
Since Human Beings have an Unalienable Right to Liberty, who determines what the Obligations of a Person should be? Who has a right to say whether a person is Obligated for this thing or that? What are a man’s Obligations to himself, to his family, to his country, to the Human Race? Who can say if we are Obligated to Plants and Animals, for example, or to the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars? If compiled from a solicitation of people’s opinions a list of theoretical Obligations would be endless. Logic dictates, however, that we can’t be Obligated for everything – there is a Line somewhere.
As indicated above, there are two major types of Obligations, Ethical and Financial, and the proverbial Line which determines their scope is made visible by the Light of the Proto Criterion.
Indubitably, the Proto Criterion reveals the only Ethical Obligation for a Human Being is to Revere the Right to Life; that’s all. From this Reverence flows all Righteousness. Whoever loves the Right to Life with all of their heart and mind will automatically live according to the Principles of Love and do unto others as they would have others do unto them. Whoever intrinsically hates the Right to Life will not abide by the Principles of Love and will ultimately treat others unjustly.
Likewise, the Proto Criterion reveals that the default Financial Obligation of a Human Being is to provide for themselves: it is a function of the Cultivation of their own Life and the Preservation of their Freedom. Any additional Financial Obligations must be ones they choose for themselves, either directly or indirectly as a result of their own actions. If you choose to get Married and take on Dependents, for example, you are obligated to provide for them, or if you choose to borrow money to buy a car, you are obligated to repay the loan. If you choose to have sex you’ve automatically chosen to accept the consequences; you are obligated to take responsibility for the product of your actions.
Every Human Being has the Right to choose their own Financial Obligations. One person cannot Financially Obligate another. In other words, no one has the right to impose financial obligations on anyone else without their consent. In fact, no one has the right to impose an Obligation of any kind, Ethical or Financial, on anyone else without their consent (see the Declaration of Independence). Obligations are only to be established between consenting Individuals, between one person and another, and never between Groups or Types of people. In other words, you can never be Obligated for something simply because you’re classified as a member of a particular Group such as rich or poor, male or female, white or black, etc.., etc..
But this forces us into a discussion about a citizen’s obligations to their Government. Aren’t we obligated to pay taxes and fund our Government with or without our consent? Doesn’t the Government and Society, in general, have the Right to make us obligated for certain things?
In Truth, a Government doesn’t have the “Right” to make us Obligated for anything [without our consent]. In practical terms, however, we’re faced with two fundamental dilemmas:
- We require Governments to secure the Proto Criteria.
- Governments, in turn, need to be funded to accomplish this task.
This is a predicament, I fear, that was never philosophically addressed by our Founding Fathers; although they debated about how taxes should be collected, they never really questioned the fundamental morality of the Tax Paradigm in the first place; it was a fait accompli.
Taxation, for all intents and purposes, has been considered as the Divine Right of Governments since the Dawn of Civilization. No one has ever been able to institute an alternative because those in Power aren’t about to give it up; in the end, Power is the ability to levy and collect Taxes. Whoever has the Power to levy and collect Taxes rules Society. Whoever has the ability to take something away from someone else is Dominant – every schoolyard bully and Despot knows this. Our Forefather’s believed that if the Power to levy and collect Taxes was equally distributed among several Elected Representatives of the People, it was less likely to be abused. Time, however, has proven their assumptions to be incorrect. The Power to levy and collect Taxes, even in Representative forms of Government, can and will be Abused.
In order to preserve our Proto Criterian Rights we don’t simply need Tax Reform, we need to Reform the way Governments are funded. We need to find a way to fund our Government that doesn’t involve Taxation; the authority to Levy and Collect Taxes needs to be taken away from the Government and Government Officials.
Tax Abuse is fueled by a Political Quest for Power. Power is achieved when Government Officials surreptitiously make themselves “indispensable” by establishing systems of Obligation and Dependency, essentially becoming Masters in a game of Pets and Slaves.
- Masters need Slaves and Pets to achieve and maintain their Power.
- Masters make Slaves and Pets by exploiting Crises with Propaganda and Deceit.
- Masters coerce people into becoming Slaves by manipulating their Guilt.
- Masters seduce people into becoming Pets by appealing to their Self-Interest.
- Slaves are those convinced to be Obligated to their Masters because of Guilt.
- Pets are those convinced to be Dependent upon their Masters because of Self-Interest.
- Masters take from the Slaves and give to the Pets.
- Slaves remain loyal to the Master to placate their Guilt.
- Pets remain loyal to the Master because the Master is their Provider.
Basically, the game of Pets and Slaves is about the Ruling Class taking wages away from the Working Class to create and fund a Dependent Class; Taxes are used for Transfer Payments rather than for the Security of the Proto Criteria. The Government is using its funding to provide for the Security of its own Members rather than the Security of the People’s Unalienable Rights. This, by definition, is Corruption; the Government is no longer doing what it was created to do, and “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles.”
In a Free Society, Citizens are not Obligated to Fund Transfer Payments, nor are Free Citizens Entitled to receive them. It is not a function of the Security of the Proto Criteria for the Government to mandate “charity.” Charity must be a voluntary action taken by the Individual.
The Proto Criteria are the gift of Nature and Nature’s God, but Governments came into being because these Rights were threatened. First came the Proto Criteria then came Governments. Governments are the add-ons, not the Proto Criteria. Violations of the Proto Criteria gave birth to Governments, Governments did not give birth to the Proto Criteria. In other words, the Proto Criteria are not the inventions of Governments, Governments cannot grant or revoke them. Governments have a duty to protect the Proto Criteria, but the Proto Criteria do not have a duty to uphold Governments. Therefore, every action of a Government must provide for the Security of the Proto Criteria, and that means Governments have no right to issue endless Lists of Regulations to solve hyperbolic Crises or establish Cultures of Obligation to support programs of needless Dependency.
Everyone has the Right to live by the Proto Criteria. The Proto Criteria are Mandatory but the existence of Governments are not.
I am neither a fool nor an Anarchist, I completely realize that a world without Governments is not Realistic or Desirable. The World is filled with millions of heartless individuals who have no regard for the Sanctity of Human life.
Political Con Artists and Policy Wonks attempt to entice unsuspecting People with promises of a “Better Life through Government,” but what they’re really selling are nothing more than Cultures of Obligation, Regulation, and Dependency to create Power and Authority for themselves.
The only real way to achieve a Better Life is through cultivating the Proto Criteria.
Dependencies
The Ultimate Goal of every Megalomaniac, Dictator, Despot, Autocrat, Tyrant, Authoritarian, Totalitarian, and Oligarch is to make everyone inescapably Dependent upon them for the ability to Live; they want Control of every aspect of Human Life.
Dependencies are political or religious machinations that either impede or prevent Self-Determination. A person who is incapable of Self-Determination is Dependent. Whoever is Dependent is not Independent, and whoever is not Independent is not Free.
A Culture of Dependency is an environment that’s conducive to the propagation of Dependents. A Culture of Dependency, therefore, is a Culture that’s diametrically opposed to Real Freedom.
There are Degrees of Dependencies, ranging from being someone’s literal Prisoner or Slave to living as a Minor with your parents, but they all involve the absence of Self-Determination. Dependency is about being held Captive to the Will of Others.
Anyone who is sustained by, supported by, and put into service by another is a Dependent. A Dependent can be manifest as either a Pet or a Slave, but they will always serve a Master. Dependents, therefore, are relegated to live as Second-Class citizens.
Independence is not to be had in Dependency – that fact is right in front of your face. In order for people to preserve their Freedom, they must resist the temptation to allow other people (and institutions such as the Government) to provide for their sustenance, their livelihood, and their salvation. This means they need to cultivate a propensity for self-reliance; they must equip themselves with the talents necessary to provide for their own sustenance, their own livelihood, and their own salvation. They shouldn’t go to Regulators for solutions to their Problems, and they should understand that when Regulators propose Solutions that involve New Regulations, New Taxes, and Promises for the Redistribution of Wealth it is a Scam. Free People are First-Class citizens.
Governments should not operate Programs of Dependency such as Social Security, Medicaid, and Welfare, because it is a Government’s responsibility to secure the Proto Criteria. Since the Proto Criteria include the Unalienable Human Right of Liberty, and Programs of Dependency are destructive to Liberty by definition, they automatically violate the Proto Criteria.
Those who receive Subsidies from the Government are essentially its Pets, and those who are made to pay for the Subsidies are essentially its Slaves. No one wants to be a Slave, but some people think it would be nice to be a Pet – they don’t realize that a Pet is controlled by a Master the same as a Slave.
Let there be Charity in abundance, but don’t let the Government administer it; Charity is not a proper function of Government. If the Government attempts to administer Charity it will no longer be Charity, it will be an Obligation. Government and Government Officials will abuse the administration of Charity without exception, for a Government does no good outside of securing the Proto Criteria.
Always Remember,
Internal Freedom is measured by a Passionate Regard for the Sanctity of Human Life. Without a Passionate Regard for the Sanctity of Human Life a Human Being can never be Free; they cannot do what is Just or believe what is True because their own Opinions lead them into a state of Personal Bondage.
External Freedom is measured in terms of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies. External Freedom is inversely proportional to the number of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies a person is forced to endure. The fewer the number of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies a person has to endure, the more Freedom they possess. The greater the number of Obligations, Regulations, and Dependencies a person has to endure, the less Freedom they possess.
Audit your Life – Measure your Real Freedom.
The Proto Criterion (the Declaration of Humanity and the Right to Life)
The Proto Criterion consists of the Declaration of Humanity and the Right to Life; it is the God of All Rights and there is no other.
All Rights come into being through the Proto Criterion, and without it no Right is Real or Justified.
The Right to Life and the Declaration of Humanity are Inseparable as the Proto Criterion. One may be discussed apart from the other, but they are always intrinsically connected. Very often, I will refer to the Right to Life as the Proto Criterion all by itself, but that does not mean that I consider it separate from the Declaration of Humanity.
The Declaration of Humanity
In order to properly Institute the Human Right to Life, we must formally declare Humanity in the context of the Maximum extent of a Human Individual’s Physical and Biological Lifecycle. Anything less would be subjective, and there can’t be anything more.
Therefore, the Declaration of Humanity comes in Two Sections. The First Section addresses the Reality of Natural Humanity and the Second Section addresses the Theoretical Possibilities of Technological Humanity.
1. A Human Being is that Entity at any stage of Biological development Commencing with the Fertilization of the Human Egg by the Human Sperm. 2. And also, a Human Being is that Entity at any stage of Biological development resulting from Technology, such as Cloning or any other form of Genetic Engineering utilizing a Majority of Human Tissue.
By far, the most important part of the Declaration of Humanity is the First Section, and it will stand with or without the Second Section. The Second Section will only come into play if someone finds a way to bypass the Natural Processes and creates people Technologically – otherwise it’s a Moot Point.
The Declaration of Humanity doesn’t establish when Life begins, it establishes when a Person begins. Actually, Life doesn’t have a Starting Point – the Sperm and the Egg are already Alive when they come together. A Person has a Starting Point. A new Person begins when a Viable Egg is fertilized by a Viable Sperm, and the Genes of the Mother are joined with the Genes of the Father.
It is an Irrefutable Scientific Fact that you began when one of your Mother’s Living Eggs was fertilized by one of your Father’s Living Sperm; this is The Point at which you received all your Personal Genetic Information. To deny that this event was the Origin of your Physical Being is either Certifiably Psychotic or Patently Belligerent; your opinion would be of no value.
The First Section of the Declaration of Humanity is effectively an Undeniable Truth.
The Second Section of the Declaration of Humanity addresses things that are not much of an issue now, but may be in the future. The Objective Premise of the Second Section is sound, but the use of the ambiguous phrase “Majority of Human Tissue” will provide fodder for debate. The problem with simply using the term “Majority” is that it represents a whole number percentage anywhere from 51% to 100%, and there is a high probability of extreme variation. 100% Human Clones are not the issue, they’re definitely Human, but it may be possible to somehow splice Human Tissue with Animal Tissue and create a Hybrid.
Is a Technologically generated Hybrid a Human Being if it is 51% Human and 49% Chimpanzee?
After much consideration, I’m morally obligated to preemptively acknowledge the rights of Human Hybrids to guard them, and the rest of us, from potential abuse by those with nefarious motives. I figure – if Human Hybrids have all the rights and responsibilities of Human Beings, why create them in the first place? You won’t have the right to manufacture Hybrids to exploit them, and Hybrids that somehow come into being won’t have the right to exploit us; there is no reason to take the time, the money, and the resources to create them. If you can’t treat a Hybrid or a Clone any differently than you would another Human Being there is no reason for them to exist.
Though I can envision leagues of Goat-Men exercising their voting rights for the mad scientist who invented them, I realize that we can severely impact the probability of that ever happening by simply making the practice of creating Human Hybrids and Clones illegal. Unless the entire Human Race is imminently facing Extinction, there is no intrinsic Right to explore this kind of Genetic Technology at all.
Therefore, the Second Section of the Declaration of Humanity will most likely deal with the Consequences of Illegal Activity. Somewhere, somehow, someone will try to make a Human Clone or a Human Hybrid and be successful – and we will be prepared.
For the overwhelming Majority of Circumstances, and that’s extremely understated, the First Section of the Declaration of Humanity will apply. Really, how many people exist, right now, that were created as a Human Clone or a Human Hybrid? Even if 100 Human Hybrids and Clones existed out of the 7 billion people in the world, it would mean the First Section applies to at least 99.99999999% of the population.
Therefore, I have prepared an Official Abridgement of the Declaration of Humanity for when the Second Section isn’t really necessary to present:
A Human Being is that Entity at any stage of Biological development Commencing with the Fertilization of the Human Egg by the Human Sperm.
Otherwise, I am quite scientifically, logically, rationally, and spiritually certain that the full version I have written is a Comprehensive and Valid Declaration of Humanity.
Now let us consider the Right to Life.
The Right to Life
Anyone can draw an Arbitrary Line across the Human Lifecycle and say, “This is when the Right to Life begins,” but it would only be Arbitrary.
This is the definition of the word Arbitrary from the Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1967,
ar·bi·trary \’är-bə-,trer-ē\ adj 1 : depending on choice or discretion; specif : determinable by decision of a judge or tribunal 2 a : arising from will or caprice b : selected at random and without reason 3 : DESPOTIC, TYRANNICAL
Here is an updated definition of the word Arbitrary from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, dated 04/28/2011.
Definition of ARBITRARY
1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government> b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee> b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan>
Source – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary
The reason I displayed both these definitions is to demonstrate that when something is Arbitrary it is subject to Opinion, and when something is subject to Opinion, it is not Constant. Also, take note of the 3rd definition from the Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary; DESPOTIC, TYRANNICAL. If something such as the Right to Life is determined Arbitrarily it is certainly DESPOTIC and TYRANNICAL.
In order to ensure Justice and Equality for the entire Human Race, it is imperative that the Right to Life be exactly the Same for every Human Being as defined by the Declaration of Humanity. The Right to Life must be an Irreducible Constant, and it cannot be determined Arbitrarily.
Therefore, the only Logical, Rational, and Equitable Application of the Right to Life is for it to preside over the Entire Human Lifecycle as Described by the Declaration of Humanity.
A Human Being shall have the Right to be Alive and Cultivate the Life which they’ve been given, from either the time of their Conception or the point of their Creation, Except when that Human Being has been found Guilty of Murdering another Human Being by the Due Process of Law.
And to compliment the Officially Abridged Declaration of Humanity, an Officially Abridged version of the Right to Life:
A Human Being shall have the Right to be Alive and Cultivate the Life which they’ve been given, from the time of their Conception to their Ultimate Demise, Except when that Human Being has been found Guilty of Murdering another Human Being by the Due Process of Law.
For the Right to Life to preside over anything less than the Entire Human Lifecycle would make the legitimacy of all other rights Tenuous. Since the Right to Life is the Foundation of all other Human Rights, it would be utterly irrational to Base it on the Shifting Sands of Arbitrary Decisions.
To say the Right to Life begins at Birth, rather than Conception, is Substandard because it undermines the Concept of Human Equality by subjugating the very Life of an existing Human Being to the Capricious Will of another. This is not Judicious or Practical. Birth is simply a Stage in the Human Lifecycle after a Period of Development in the Womb. Besides, with the advent of certain Technologies as we discussed in the Second Section of the Declaration of Humanity, there may come a day when Human Beings are no longer “born.”
I understand that a Woman has the Right to Her own Body – we all have the Right to our own Bodies, but only in the context of the Right to Life. None of us has the Right to Kill anyone except in Self Defense. Is an expectant mother going to claim that her unborn child is trying to kill her and she’s only trying to defend herself? Maybe she should issue a Declaration of War against the baby in her womb.
Let’s be honest – the only people who will have a problem with the Declaration of Humanity and the Right to Life are those who want to Kill for Convenience, either through Abortion, Euthanasia, or Genocide; there is no other reason to oppose it.
Both Murder and Abortion are committed because the life of one person supposedly stands in the way of what another person wants.
In fact, since Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of any People who are Arbitrarily deemed Undesirable, Abortion and Euthanasia are merely specific forms of Genocide. Therefore, the primary Justification of Abortion is a list of Emotionally Repugnant Conundrums that would otherwise result in the existence of supposedly Undesirable People.
Consider the Arguments for Abortion:
The Rape Justification – Suppose a woman is raped and she becomes pregnant, doesn’t she have the Right to abort the baby? Suppose a very young girl, a mere child herself, is raped and she becomes pregnant, must she be forced to give birth? What if she is the victim of incest?
The Life-threatening Justification – Suppose that a woman’s health, even her very life, is threatened by a pregnancy, doesn’t she have the Right to abort the baby? Doesn’t she have the Right to defend her own Life or preserve her own health?
Mutation Justification – Suppose that a fetus is grossly deformed and will never have the chance to lead a normal life, shouldn’t the mother have the Right to Abort it?
Economic Justification – Suppose that a pregnant woman doesn’t have the economic means to support a child, shouldn’t she have the Right to Abort.
These are basically the Main Arguments for Abortion, though some others do exist. Notice how each one is presented as a particularly Repugnant Problem that affects the Emotions in order to evoke sympathy for the cause.
Every Con Job begins with the announcement of a Problem, and every Con Artist presents a Solution for their own benefit.
In all these cases Abortion is implied to be the only “logical” Solution to the Problem.
But how would you solve these Problems if Abortion was not an option – not that it was illegal, but that it was both physically and medically impossible to terminate a pregnancy? What if people were forced to deal with the fact that Pregnancy was simply an irresistible Process of Nature that had to run its course, like a rainstorm or a tidal wave? What would you do then?
It’s an Incontrovertible Fact, all but one of these “Problems” could be solved without Abortion.
The only legitimate reason for a woman to have an Abortion is to protect her own Life. If for some reason being pregnant endangers her life, a Woman has the Right to Kill in Self-Defense. We all do, because it is a function of the Right to Life.
The Real Reasons for the vast majority of Abortions, however, are rooted in Psychopathy; a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life. There is a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life during Intercourse and a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life during Pregnancy. In other words, most people use Abortion simply to escape the consequences of their actions and conceal evidence of wrongdoing.
As stated earlier in the Right to Liberty, the only Ethical Obligation of an Individual is to Revere the Right to Life. Therefore, Sexual Intercourse that is unprepared Emotionally, Physically, and Socially for the Obligations of Pregnancy is a Failure of Consideration and Immoral; it is revealed to be the product of a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life, not a product of Real Love. In other words, if you don’t stop and think about what you’re really doing before you have Sex, YOU FAIL! Sex is neither Evil nor Meaningless – it is a Sacred Trust.
A Passionate Regard for the Sanctity of Human Life beginning at Conception is the First Criterion of Morality. If one cannot pass the First Criterion of Morality one cannot claim to be Moral at all.
There is a reason you feel Guilty for engaging in activities when you are unprepared for the Consequences, you violate the Ultimate Criterion of Morality; your body intrinsically knows that you’re trying to deny the Spirit of Life which has flowed through the veins of our Species since the Dawn of Time.
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Jesus Christ – Matthew 12:30-32 NIV
Therefore, make sure you are prepared Emotionally, Physically, and Socially for the Obligations of Pregnancy when you choose to have Sexual Intercourse.
If you’re not, Change your Mind.
While I can understand the notion that it is “wrong” to Masturbate or use Birth Control, it certainly isn’t a violation of the Proto Criterion. The Declaration of Humanity indicates that neither a Sperm Cell nor an Egg Cell is a Human Being, and our bodies automatically throw them off all the time.
A Human Being is that Entity at any stage of Biological development Commencing with the Fertilization of the Human Egg by the Human Sperm.
This means that those who use Birth Control or Masturbate are not guilty of violating the Proto Criterion; they do not extinguish the Life of an Existing Human Being. They may be guilty of violating something else, such as their own conscience or someone else’s trust, but they are certainly not guilty of violating the Right to Life. I will leave it at that.
The Proto Criteria are FOR you, not against you. They are not a Darkness that plunges you into Death, they are a Light that illuminates your Life. They are not Prohibitions and Impositions that hold you back, they are Decrees and Guiding Principles that set you Free.
The Proto Criteria are the Safeguards of Your Life, they are Your Protection against those who want to Control and Subdue Society. They are Your Sword, they are Your Power, they are Your Equality, they are Your Justice – they are Your Salvation.
Epilogue
I am not writing the Word of God, I am simply Extrapolating according to a Compassionate Regard for the Sanctity of Human Life. Anyone can do it, all that has to be done is to begin with the premise that Human Life is Sacred and go from there. The Passionate Regard for the Sanctity of Human Life is the Core Belief required to set the Train of Logic and Reason on the Tracks of Truth and Justice. Without this as your Core Belief, your Logic and Reason will be Arbitrary Convoluted Irrational Contradictory Dysfunctional and Chaotic, and Truth and Justice will be Unfulfilled.
Human Rights are Hierarchical, and they must be extrapolated Hierarchically or they will be Invalid.
Life is the Light of All Mankind, and the Right to Life is the Proto Criterion, the Greatest of all Rights. It is the Supreme Right, the Original Right, and there is no Right which has Precedence over it.
Anyone who transgresses the Right to Life is Categorically Unjust, and any Idea which infringes upon the Right to Life is Demonstrably Invalid. Indeed, anyone who transgresses any of the Proto Criteria is Categorically Unjust, and any Idea which infringes upon any of the Proto Criteria is Demonstrably Invalid.
The Proto Criteria are the Fundamental Rights required to Draft any Bills of Rights among Men, and they are the Standard by which to Judge the Validity of all Claims set forth in any Bills of Rights upon the face of the Earth. The Proto Criteria will be utilized Primarily to Evaluate the Veracity and Legitimacy of Proposed and Existing Entitlements. If someone makes a Claim to an Entitlement outside of the Parameters of the Proto Criteria, it is NOT a Legitimate Right and it never will be.
Furthermore, no Government has the Right to exist unless it is founded upon the Proto Criteria, and if any Government becomes hostile towards the Proto Criteria, the People have the Right to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles. Any Law which extends beyond the boundaries set by the Proto Criteria is Inherently Unjust, and must be Rescinded or Rewritten. Any Leader, Judge, or Authority who Denigrates, Maligns, or Abrogates the Proto Criteria must be removed from office by any means necessary.
The Proto Criteria is the Sword of Life, Liberty, Justice, and Equality. Whoever speaks and lives in accordance with the Proto Criteria has Ultimate Authority.
Violating the Proto Criteria, forfeits the Proto Criteria. The Proto Criteria cannot be taken away from you by someone else – they are Unalienable. You, however, can Alienate yourself from the Proto Criteria with your own behavior – if you lose the Proto Criteria it is your own fault. Whosoever will not live with the Proto Criteria will die without the Proto Criteria.
The Proto Criteria is not an Option – it is The Law, and no Government, Army, or Demon from Hell can remove it. Any Request for their Ratification is merely a Token Formality.
Once again, the Universal Recognition of the Proto Criteria is the only legitimate and practical means to bring about Justice, Equality, and Liberty for the entire Human Race. Without the Proto Criteria, none of these things will ever truly exist, for depraved and malicious minds will never adopt them: they are a Window to the Soul.