Author: Chris Krause

In 462 BCE the plebian Terentilius proposed that the laws of Rome be publicly posted as it had been the custom of the patricians, who enforced the law, to keep the law secret, and often exploited their power with arbitrary, unjust enforcement. Pressured by the plebeians and fearing a revolt the patricians finally relented first in 450 and then 449, summoning an assembly of ten wise and virtuous men to travel abroad in the Greek world in hopes of finding the inspiration needed to create their own constitution by studying Hellenic law. The first of these assemblies drafted ten laws (which would come to be tables) and the second assembly would draft two more.  This latter assembly also penned, according to Livy, a secessio plebes which compelled the senate to consider the legislation now known formally as the “Law of the Twelve Tables.” Soon the laws were imprinted on bronze and posted in the public forum within Rome, bringing an end to the perceived injustices of the patricians and restoring social cohesion to the powder keg which Rome had become.

The Twelve Tables was instrumental in reinforcing the roman preconceptions about how a society should be structured. Men were by custom considered to have absolute authority within the household and this notion is reflected in the Twelve Tables. The tables are in essence a proto-Bill of Rights in that they were not a complete listing of the law but rather a publicly accountable enumeration of private rights and civic expectations. Sadly for the women, at least as far as the Twelve Tables is concerned, they have no public rights; there is simply no notable mention of women in the text, all rights being granted to the male. The only mention of women is to curtail their rights, as in Table 10 in which women are commanded not to express sorrow in public or presumably be subject to punishment. In Table 5 we are told that if a husband dies the estate does not pass to the wife, but to the nearest in kin. Even if next of kin does not exist, the estate passes to the clan, not the wife.

The omission of universal rights in the Twelve Tables is not a mistake: the Romans did not consider women to have a civic body and they were interpreted as being under the ultimate authority of the husband, or if she was unmarried, eldest male relative. The “law” which effected most women of Rome was the man’s whim, for the man was judge, jury and executioner within a household.

Although we might scoff at these seemingly anachronistic views of gender and relationships the Twelve Tables were nevertheless instrumental as a foundation for further Roman lawmaking which would evolve to inspire all modern republics and parliamentary governments. While the initial Twelve Tables were rudimentary, the legislation of classical Roman law hundreds of years later would inspire the modern court system, procedural justice and civil rights: the hallmarks of any healthy republic. In a republic the law, a universal law which all are bound to and expected to adhere to from consul to plebian, and the court system which enforces it, a rule by law and legislation in quest of greater social justice are all crucial aspects necessary for it’s operation. In the Twelve Tables and the law which it inspired we observe clearly the foundations of the modern state: a public trust ruled by law books rather than might, where the prestigious and the meek are expected to behave in the same way.

Here

I want to re-iterate a position I have always held, which is that I have found no reason to “support the troops.” All soldiers currently deployed are volunteers (none were conscripted against their will) which means they can and should be accountable not only for the crimes of the war, but the war itself.

While I can feel empathy for soldiers who fight for righteous (or at least legal) wars, or those in illegal actions conscripted against their will, I still hold firmly to the position that soldiers volunteering for illegal or unjust wars are committing treason. I just hope that these traitors have enough self-respect to kill themselves or at least speak the honest truth of their crimes and subject themselves to punishment rather than fleeing from it.

While I think most soldiers in Iraq do have mercenary aspirations, that is, they fight for a prize rather than to perform a constitutional duty, that is not really central to the issue I am raising.

My argument is that those who volunteer to enable, support or finance an illegal or unjust action are responsible for it and thus, if they have true honor, kill themselves, or at least admit themselves to public judgment.

I am suggesting that a more functional way to live is to take responsibility for one’s own actions. Why should we respect men who volunteer to kill other men in an undeclared war, for no intelligible reason, and who often do so for a prize of college money or job training. These are not men at all, and “supporting” them is unethical. I have had enough with tolerating mediocre and criminal men.

I have yet to see anyone comment on the pictures from the American prisons in Iraq. Abu Gharib was one of dozens of American secret prisons where torture, massacre, summary execution and illegal imprisonment take place on a daily basis. How can you pay taxes or remain silent during times like this?

Awaken; return to yourself. Now, no longer asleep, knowing they were only dreams, clear-headed again, treat everything around you as a dream.

Taken from RonPaul2008.com

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Ronald Reagan

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive– and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state– but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

Thug Cop Beats Up Defenseless Handcuffed Woman

Are you so shocked? We live in a society where you are qualified to work based upon a degree, or completion of a training program – not the character and virtue of the employee.

Cops should act like guardians – instead they tend to act like ignorant brutes with a fanatical, single-minded interest in their own survival and advancement, routinely covering up their own widespread misbehavior.

Why? They get their job because they went through the training and passed some tests – they were never evaluated as people. They lack wisdom, and do not have a knowledge of true justice.

Or because police exist solely to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie.

That is true in most of the case – they should serve an ideal of justice rather than their own interests. Their job shouldn’t exist to serve themselves, it should exist to serve the common good – most people should not be qualified to be a cop, only the most selfless, courageous, prudent, just and temperate should be tolerated.

Then there would be too few cops.

Not necessarily. Good men can be created through a proper education.

All humans are fallible. Humans should not be given the right to preside in an authoritarian manner over one another, lest their fallibility shine through in heinous ways (such as this one).

People can be educated to be reluctant about exercising power – and by training them to practice prudence, justice and temperance they can learn to restrain themselves from indulging in unjust displays of power. The people of today do not reflect people in their inherent state: it is possible to educate men into being indifferent judges who restrain themselves from the passions. Of course, these judges are not necessary if the entire population is educated in such a way, but until that day comes, guardians must overlook society.

Have you ever looked at astonishment at how utterly intolerable a child was behaving – and wondered how this was possible, how the parents were so oblivious to the abomination they had created?

I am inspired again and again by the example of my half-sister to write a long essay on the education and upbringing of the youth. In none else is failure at education and parenting more clearly illustrated. Frequent observations of her nature and the relationship between child and parent compel me with a force I have not felt in many years to put my words to paper.

I have had the great opportunity of getting a chance to observe her complete development from infant to now – and it is quite clear to see that she became corrupt once she was exposed to TV and the public schools (at approximately the same time). She spends 90% of her “free time” in front of the TV most days, does not play with any friends and is fed directives by advertising which she attempts to realize by conning my parents into buying her things, at any cost. The public schools have not bettered her but made her more superficial and eliminated a natural curiosity which she seemed to exercise before exposure to the system. Due to the constant exposure to advertising and “children entertainment” programs on TV she has come to imitate dysfunctional pop culture figures and wasteful, disrespectful characters from shows.

How such failure and abomination could be attributed to “attention deficit disorder” shows us how far we have come as a people: we perpetually fail to take responsibility for our failures and instead attribute the dysfunction in our children to medical causes. Self-defeating methods of parenting are implemented again and again and the only result is a more superficial, treacherous, barbaric, sycophantic, greedy, pernicious and depraved child, with a love only for pop culture trends realized with a disturbingly obvious set of deceits learned in order to achieve needless consumption of it.

Every child today is a Nero and we celebrate their oppressive tyranny by allowing them to scream over the muffled and docile words of elders. We celebrate their tyranny by making compromises with them so that they might behave normally, when they perpetually deceive their parents into buying them what the ever-pervasive pop culture has demanded. With constant exposure to a television dedicated to indoctrinating the child into a rage of desire, the true parents are the advertisers: they set the values.
‘If you stop screaming over your grandmother I will buy you a Polly Pocket’

The deceitful Nero does not know what it means to be good and only judges what is right and wrong by consumption. Those who offer to indulge the tyrannical desires are rewarded with fake love, those who refuse are punished with intolerable behavior. Discipline and setting boundaries is considered archaic and barbaric and so after seven warnings the child continues to rape the dignity of the parent, only to laugh sadistically when scolded by those who hold wisdom.

It is has become a taboo in our society to deny to children any desire – the popular wisdom dictates that the child which is spoiled most extravagantly has the best parents. No expense is spared to encourage our children to buy worthless trinkets! Buying, and indulging desire becomes the sole purpose of Nero’s existence and seductions which would convince others to give gifts are practiced. This appearance is only gilded and lying behind it is a monster who sells loyalty and love to the highest bidder. Every good action must be rewarded and is never done simply for the sake of. The parents, who themselves are in all likelihood not good and probably worship at the Mall, still try to sell their ‘traditional morality’ and ‘manners’ to their corrupt progeny by offering material prizes for behavior which should be expected anyway. Let us always settle for the mediocrity and indecency of yesterday instead of thinking about how we ought to live today!

Enough ranting for now… I must organize this panic into coherence.

Fate: How much longer?

As far as educating children is involved, I have a lot of ideas which I want to get down – but whenever I start thinking about this topic I get so worked up and furious that I end up ranting. I think over the next vacation where I have a month or more to think about these things, I will spend a lot of my time trying to think of an elegant way of presenting my thoughts. I also need to read Emile by Rousseau and re-read The Republic, as those two texts really relate to my mode of thought.

I’m not persistently sober because of “adverse effects” (I assume you are referring to physical illness) and if any of you are you won’t last for long – unless of course you have some medical disorder which makes the consumption of drugs lethal. Simply put, as the OP pointed out, some drugs are not adverse to one’s health if consumed in a certain fashion – and if health is your reason for rejecting intoxication or altered states of consciousness, you might as well educate yourself and begin eating pot brownies.

Straight edge by itself is fairly worthless – it is more useful as a label than anything else, and without an underlying framework of ethics it falls apart. It is for this reason that I have always tried to avoid discussing straight edge and instead offered perspectives on how to live well – the former implies adherence to a label without the ‘why’, the latter implies a life quest for sustainable, examined living. I think many people who call themselves straight edge have not examined their reasons, and without such an examination, will grow out of it.

For me, sobriety, temperance and vigilance are necessary faculties for being the type of person I want to be. Altered states would fray the rationality I hold so dear and make it more difficult to search for the truth of matters. Sobriety is also necessary for properly adhering to one’s duties, whether it be loyal friendship or duty to ideals, the state or principles. Furthermore, desire and yearning for things which we cannot control (such as the objects of our desire) is the principle cause of agony in the world and I would rather desire less and as a consequence be happy more. Lastly, one cannot fend off the wolves if  drunk:

“And what do I do?” said the surly voice of the small man. He was short and stout, was not very smart, not very good looking, not very good at anything, so he did odd jobs around the grocer and the town square.

Arminass poured two beers. He handed one to the surly small man. “You work odd jobs, and do what others tell you to do, and do not worry about the problems of this town, ” said Arminass.

“That’s what I always did, ” said the small man. “You’re just like the rest of them, keeping me down. If it weren’t for you, I would be rich.”

Arminass pointed across the square. “That grocer was an orphan who had no money, but now he has a store. Did you have two parents?”

“Yes, ” said the small man.

Arminass waved to the town policeman. “That man started out life as a small baby, fighting for life, blue in the face. Were you born normally?”

“Well, yes I was, ” said the man.

Arminass thought, told the man to drink his beer, and then pointed to a woman who was tending small children. “Her husband died and left her with no money, but now she has her own store of metalworks and a healthy family. Is your wife alive?”

“Why, yes she is, ” said the man.

Arminass turned to him and said, “You can see there is a reason why you are what you are, and it is not that I kept you down, or anyone else did. You are at the position life has selected for you. What you should do is rejoice in your freedom from having to worry about the complications of life, and spend your time enjoying it. In fact, I suggest you drink and be merry.”

The man drank. “Why are you not drinking?” he asked.

“I must consider the safety of the town, ” said Arminass. “If tigers show up and I am drunk, I cannot stop them. If a fire breaks out and I am drunk, I cannot smother it. If bandits appear and I am drunk, I cannot fight. This is why you should be glad not to have to serve as I do.”

The man considered Arminass. “But isn’t that boring?”

“No. It is what life made me to do, and I find that while I would like to be drunk sometimes, I feel better if I am doing what I am made to do, so that my life may have meaning.”

From a forum I post on:

Should politicians adhere to higher morals than the average citizen? Why?

As to your previous post, I did not articulate my thoughts on this topic as I thought they could be deduced from reading the first link I posted. This is a difficult subject to dive into and it really begs the question: what are the roles of government, and how should a people accomplish those roles?

Most people would agree that government’s fundamental role is to protect the people and to administer justice, to become a “living god” – but in what way? Most people would say that government should behave in a sober, indifferent, wise way – such traits seem to lead to harmony and wellbeing in a principality. How should these behaviors be delivered? A democracy or republic seems to be the ideal.

Democracy is flawed because it requires that the people voting are virtuous. A people without virtue and wisdom deliver faulty judgments. It is unrealistic to expect the masses to behave in a sound, wise, informed way – but we can expect certain individuals to behave in a virtuous way. This logic lead to the formation of republics, government in which the people are represented by individuals who value civic virtue and duty above all things.

The unfortunate consequence of republics is that a disconnect between civic life and private life is formed – and the people no longer tend to be concerned with exercising a civic body. The representatives become more mediocre as time passes and find themselves prone to pander to the increasingly distant masses. It is the responsibility of education to ensure that the people remain active and passionately involved in the political process and that the ideals of the republic are perennially renewed in the hearts and minds of the people. A “career” in politics should become as desirable to people as is buying iPhones so that the statesmen in office remain faithful to the needs of the public. This inclination has to be born out of a proper education, something which is surely lacking in the upbringing of most children. Politics should not be a matter of dynasty, it should be a ever-renewing wellspring of virtue.

Looking around today it is clear to see that our republic is in collapse as the “good” of politics has turned from selfless duty in serving the public trust to self-advancement and self-indulgence. Our representatives have degenerated from virtuous philosophers to smirking, condescending, mall culture sophists, sycophants, cowards and demagogues who openly ignore the rule of law and commonly use “bread and circuses” to dazzle and seduce an increasingly bovine and depraved public. The people have become so ignorant, intellectually stagnant and so weak-willed that they allow their rights to be fleeced, do not concern themselves with the operations of state and seem obsessed chiefly with buying things or enfeebling themselves with drugs to distract themselves from their own self-created misery.

The solution is fundamental reforms in education and a public outcry to deliver justice upon traitors who violate the rule of law.

Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. If he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is god both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

Inspired by the LibriVox reading of the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (Translated by George Long) I have decided to read the Gregory Hays translation, which I find to be superior.

Book 1 “Debts and Lessons” – 16:52
[mp3@128kbps – 15.45MB]

Book 2 “Among the Quadi” – 14:45
[mp3@128kbps – 13.51MB]

Book 3 “In Carnuntum” – 17:29
[mp3@128kbps – 16.02MB]

Book 4 – 26:42
[mp3@128kbps – 24.45MB]

Book 5 – 26:28
[mp3@128kbps – 24.23MB]

Book 6 – 26:59
[mp3@128kbps – 24.71MB]

Book 7 – 26:28
[mp3@128kbps – 24.24MB]

Book 8 – 28:25
[mp3@128kbps – 26.02MB]

Book 9 – 25:22
[mp3@128kbps – 23.23MB]

Book 10 – 26:47
[mp3@128kbps – 24.53MB]

Book 11 – 23:36
[mp3@128kbps – 21.62MB]

Book 12 – 20:26
[mp3@128kbps – 18.72MB]

Also available as one large download (246.80MB).