The FOUNDATION for CONSENT in SOCIETY

The Evolution of Consent

2011-10-21T00:04:00.000-07:00

This is what I have been working on. Please help me edit, and let me know what you think!!!

DEDICATION

This is dedicated to my father, Kirk Schnack, who has been the best father I could have ever asked to win in a lottery such as life, and who has taught me to live by the principle that people should be free to do what they want to as long as it is not hurting anyone else in the process. Thanks Dad.

INTRODUCTION

There are some characteristics of life that are universally felt through common experience. They are objective, or at least can be described in somewhat objective terms. Such concepts (used in language to describe reality) will appeal to anyone who may care to understand. The most objective of these concepts may be those of our senses which provide us with feelings such as love, joy, understanding, compassion, as well as hate, annoyance, and pain to name only a few of the most common experiences we share as people. Our feelings are what guides us and, regardless of how we experience them as individuals, just about everyone knows what it is like to feel happiness and pain.

Science seems to be a good example of objectivity, though it oftentimes becomes refined throughout time. It appears also that some outright reject it on religious or philosophical grounds as well. Some of these ideas are not even as objective as science, of course, such as theology or ethics, though important they may be to understanding life for those who find interest in those fields. It’s also important to recognize the possibility that science may one day incorporate these realms of thought into its sphere as well, once they are better understood, and vice versa. Although it is necessary to pay homage to the thoughts of subjectivity, and though we must not forget the limits of our knowledge of the truth, we must forever focus on learning more about those universal facts that allow us to understand one another and the reality we seem to share together.

I believe the desire for consent in one’s life is a universal part of being alive, and an important development in evolution— as you will read in the coming pages. Every single one of us looks for security and comfort, companionship and belonging. No healthy and sane individual looks for enemies or hurts people for the sake of simply doing so. People who take those actions are considered sick by society’s standards. Instead, most people try to keep relationships in order to find happiness and succeed. There are still many problems in our society, however, such as a lack of consent.

Every single one of us makes mistakes as well as succeeds. There is much of what I have written within this material that will persuade, but I am not unreasonable enough to expect anyone to accept everything I say as absolute truth without first exploring the possibilities themselves. I wouldn’t expect that of anyone else’s work either, because we are all just people. For this reason, I would like the reader to see this material as a resource of ideas and not facts, to remain unproven at the end of its reading. When this book has been closed, and enters the hands of a friend, I hope research of the theories and philosophies within, independent of my own words, will ensue. For this reason I have put into bold letters the words and key phrases that will be helpful to you in studying the concepts (from outside sources) that make up the contents of the following pages.

With that in mind, I hope this book to bring new questions into the minds of its readers. At the very least, I hope a single person who reads its contents comes to new conclusions. Whether they are similar or dissimilar from my own, I value information for its own sake, as an integral part of progress, and find the conversation rewarding in itself. At the very most, however, as realistic or unrealistic as it may pan out to be, I am hoping its every reader will contemplate the information and, with a free and questioning mind, come to similar enough conclusions to my own that, united in understanding, we may cooperate in the beautiful, timeless, evolving change of the universe and appreciate our places in it, despite our differences, so we may coordinate a more consensual existence.

Consent is what this book is about. At times it may not be as clear or as obvious as I hope to present it, because the idea is being approached organically and holistically, but my entire reason for writing this book is to have a comprehensive and empirical look at how consent developed, is developing, and will continue to develop.

It's important to have a broad view of consent while reading this material because it will be covering some basic ideas as diverse as cosmology, biology, and economics. Sometimes I will use terms such as gravity, free will, liberty, desire, and more synonymously with consent, never making apparent that I am doing so. I have assumed, then, and you should as well in your reading of this, that consent is anything that is wanted, good, or, at the very least, is not rejected. You will see why as you read on.

I begin the book with an introduction of time, which transcends my three main sections— Past, Present, and Future— for reasons told in the pages to come. I will proceed into the past with a look at first principles— the cause of things— and from there I will traverse the evolution of the universe, organisms, and societies— seeing each as crucial steps in the development of our choices. We will follow evolution's path into the present and even on to the future. In the present I hope to show the nature of human behavior, in order to address the changes that could possibly be made now to expand the sphere of consent in the future.

TIME

Time is a very hard concept to grasp when one really gets down to it, so don’t become frustrated if you don’t understand Einstein’s special relativity and the like all at once. No one does. That’s why theoretical physicists are still looking for a theory of everything. I do think, however, that humanity has collectively discovered enough about time that we can start to get a grasp on how it works, even if the details are scattered. I will share some of my thoughts on it, and I hope that you find this useful.

Our look at consent will begin with cosmology, as many philosophers in the past have attributed ethics and freedom to first causes. There are many views on the subject but they are all still hypotheses, because understanding the physical laws of the cosmos has yet to be fully completed. A cyclic or oscillating model of cosmology, however, seems the most understandable, and the most in line with my own conclusions, so that is naturally what I will present as the most likely to you. Let us begin.

There is no true beginning or end to time. The beginning and end of time is a human concept and the result of death, which is ultimately another human concept. What we perceive of death is not necessarily true. It is not only a sudden end, but also new beginnings.

Humans are only capable of their own experience of reality. Whether this is in first or second person the individual can only experience their own perspective. To quote a great mind and inspiration to me, Erwin Schrödinger;

“Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary...”

As a species we have developed genes, which hold and duplicate our code, and help us interact in the world in which we live by creating our perspectives. Our experiences as individuals are our own; just because we see the world one way doesn't make it physically so.* Colors are an example of this. Does the fact that colorblindness makes you or one of your friends, perhaps, unable to see colors make them nonexistent? The colors simply do not exist to the individual because you, he, or she can not perceive a difference in the waves of the colors. Color differentiation may largely be psychological, “[…E]xperiments show that color is defined by our experience in the world, and since we all share the same world, we arrive at the same definition of colors.”

Humans are predominantly trichromats, which means that we see three basic colors and mixtures of them. Some animals are tetrachromats, which means they may have the ability to see ultraviolet or infrared as well as three other colors. Some humans, especially women, may have tetrachromatic potential, but this is rare. Most mammals are dichromats and can see only two colors. Ultraviolet exists, people just generally don’t perceive it with their eyes. That is, the individuals can not define, by their own perception, the differences in the wave lengths. Just the same, there are those who can not hear or see. Some can’t taste. Others can’t feel pain. This does not mean that these sensations are not products of existence, only that the individual can not experience those effects in their own reality. The same can be said for our sense of time.

As humans, we have physical bodies with brains that help us perceive our reality. The bodies are fueled by food calories that give them energy for movement and thought. Such things as amino acids, vitamins, and minerals replenish our cellular mass. Gases, such as oxygen and nitrogen, are also necessary. The body can actually be said, then, to be made of these forms of substance: liquid, gas, solid matter, and energy. Our bodies eventually die and degrade and we will never see the beginning or end of time as a human individual.

This relates to our understanding of the world because human reality, our understanding of it anyway, exists in a state of solid matter, subject to cause and effect, and has not found a way to keep from dying. Time’s motion forward is explained in entropy— the movement of time toward chaos, destruction, and the future— the second law of thermodynamics. Our eventual death is why we understand time as having a beginning and an end. That does not make it so, though, just as a blind person's perspective does not mean colors don't exist. They don't exist to the colorblind person's reality, but they may exist to our own. Human death makes us blind to the truth about time, but why is this so?

If we assume time is eternal, it may take a closed loop system such as a circle or a sphere. If you were to highlight a small portion of a circle, such would be the existence of humanity, unable to see the connection on the other side. But in death something happens; the body is reduced to its component parts, and when this happens it is free to exist as a component to another item altogether. Indeed, every part of our body has always existed and, as such, has composed the basic components to life forms and/or inanimate objects in the past. It will continue in this light and our bodies and the nutrients they hold will likely be used in many other life forms, probably starting with bacteria and worms and working its way up the food chain again. To humans, time has a beginning and an end, but not to the energy that makes us up.

The conservation laws hold that “matter is neither created nor destroyed but merely changed from one form to another.” This is the same as the first law of thermodynamics which states that “energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.” Matter and energy are also convertible; it says in Albert’s famous equation of mass-energy equivalence, E=mc2, that large amounts of energy can be condensed into small amounts of mass, and that the complete opposite is true as well. This, combined with conservation, means that all throughout time and space the same substance has existed, but it has changed forms many times over; energy becomes mass and mass becomes energy.

Einstein’s theories of relativity say that space and time are related as united dimensions known collectively as space-time. As such, if matter can not be created or destroyed the same must be said of time, for if matter is to exist it must be acknowledged at some point in time. You can’t have space without time or time without space. His first postulate in Special Relativity says that “The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniformly moving frames of reference.” It explains the speed of light as a universal constant. He states in his second postulate that “The velocity of light (299,792 km/s) is the same for all observers in space regardless of the motion of the source or observer.”

Because we exist as relatively similar events in space-time we recognize each other, but there is so much that we do not recognize that is going on around us. Scalar effects such as electrical charges and atmospheric pressures provide a good example. Consciousness is like a radio, we have to tune in to our realities. Sometimes we can only pick up on certain frequencies. As for humans, we pick up on the frequencies of the visible light spectrum, scents, physical pressure, sounds, and taste. We may even be subject to waves from the future, to a very limited extent.

Quantum physics have shown us that on quantum levels separate laws may be established, or standing ones applied differently. For example, in quantum mechanics one can not map the exact location of an electron in orbit, only its likely place. Electrons can disappear and reappear, and oxygen does not! How does this happen? We are still uncertain. All we know is that on a small scale we can not pinpoint locations, but we can make probable suggestions with some degree of success, while on a large scale we can reach more stable conclusions.

What we know is that matter is vibration, and vice versa. Matter and energy are one and the same. Just like the colors, what we distinguish between waves and particles is our perception of the difference between them, when in actuality it is just variation of the same thing. Energy can be converted into matter and matter into energy. The wave-particle duality demonstrates that they are not so different after all, as “waves have a particle nature and the elementary particles have a wave nature.”

According to string theory, all matter is made of little strings that are vibrating in different patterns, and what we recognize as different particles are actually just different vibrations. What the human mind recognizes as reality is variation.

If we were to look at a blank sheet of paper we would see nothing until a line is drawn across it. Upon the drawing of the line the deviation from plain white is easily recognized. However, if the line is made to be a wave it can deviate to the point of uniformity by turning the whole page black and without variation, thus making the sheet blank again— but in the opposite shade. If you started over again with white, however, you’d be right back where you started.

There is also the ever interesting question of particle-wave duality and the uncertainty principle. It seems that consciousness is necessary for materialization. It is perception that collapses waves into particles. This is known as downward causation— a nonlocal cause due to consciousness, as opposed to a local and upward cause due to chemical or physical reaction or energy exchanges (as in the construction of the body from genetic instruction). Without an observer nothing can materialize, so it brings up the question, ‘can the universe be self-aware?’

GOD

All of this about creation and the created, but what about the creator? If time is eternal where does God— the creator— fit into the idea of all of this— the creation? How was everything created? To answer, we must further ask, ‘What is God? Is God a necessary component of existence, or can the universe sustain itself without God?’

To most Americans, God is a concept of someone in the heavens creating things, judging, rewarding, answering prayers, etc. In belief-systems like these, God is a figure, a being who exercises certain powers of metaphysical importance. There are some, however, who see God as the powers of metaphysical importance, not just a wielder of these powers.

The most important characteristics of ‘God’ involve being the ‘original mover’ and the creator of order. God seems necessary in the question of causality. For instance, all motion is the effect of a single cause. When you drop a glass and it breaks on the floor, the shattering shards’ movement is caused by the momentum of the glass hitting the floor. Shards (or any material on the classical scale, for that matter) do not just move for no reason. They also don’t rearrange themselves back into glasses. Instead, a tendency toward disorder is the rule; glasses will wear, chip, and shatter. All motion and all order can arguably be traced back to the Big Bang. In a universe that is falling apart and losing momentum, it seems like magic that it even exists at all. Existence goes against the current laws of physics, which explain disorder but can not explain order.

Proponents of creation by an intelligent designer make many valid arguments regarding order in the universe. It seems that some kind of nonlocal change or conscious will is needed to increase order; to create. A common analogy about expecting the creation of order in the universe is that it would be like expecting a mess of papers quickly thrown into an open room and flying about to arrange themselves neatly in order in a stack. This is being very generous. The probability of the universe creating itself by accident is many times lower. It simply goes against the second law of thermodynamics. Proponents of intelligent design note the ability of humans to construct things and give them meaning and purpose, to create order. For example, if there is a mess of papers they can be collected and sorted into an orderly fashion by a conscious human being. Life in general seems to contradict physics because it increases in, and (at times) arranges its surroundings into, order.

Some atheists, strict ‘realists’, determinists, and materialists are likely to accept notions such as the universe having a beginning at the Big Bang as some kind of cosmic ‘accident’ (From what? Accidents have causes!) that created the universe. They are just as likely to believe that the universe is destined to end in destruction and death. From such a dire outlook it is hard to establish any kind of ethics, meaning, or purpose; the self-aware are considered weak, and material satisfaction is placed above the spiritual and emotional growth of the community. Why be good if everyone dies anyways? Why not just live a life of ultra-hedonism, at others’ expense? Nothing matters in a world without purpose and meaning. There are some who graduate from such nihilism to the world of existentialism, though, wherein one’s purpose is very real, but is emergent and self-imposed. Such would be an understanding of an immanent creator God that is within the constructs of the universe as we see it and actually is the constructs of the universe.

It’s not that far out of an idea, if considering theology in the first place, to believe that the universe itself is God. This is a sentiment that has been echoed before in Pantheistic belief systems long-time originated from all over the world, including Stoics, Taoists, Hindus, Sufis, Zen Buddhists, Catholics, and others. Pantheism is a view that holds that God and nature are one and the same. Bertrand Russell, often understood as quoting Zeno of Citius, the founder of Stoicism, says;

“God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature. In one sense, every life is in harmony with Nature, since it is such as Nature’s laws have caused it to be; but in another sense a human life is only in harmony with Nature when the individual will is directed to ends which are among those of Nature. Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature.”

If we are all part of nature, and not separate from it, then we too are inevitably part of God. God is nature. What, then, can be said about our topic, consent? What of God’s consent?

God’s consent is ever changing, along with the universe, as the will of God is the will of the whole—that which is. God is never wrong. Thus, when we are discussing consent in it’s entirety we are discussing God’s will—the will of nature that has given us the physical laws under which we live today. Our desires as individuals are miniscule in the brain of God (the universe), and we must know our place. Consent goes further than humanity. We are just an emerging idea; a part of the will of God. According to Freeman Dyson, a respected problem-solver in the field of physics;

“The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is the level of elementary physical processes in quantum mechanics. Matter in quantum mechanics is [...] constantly making choices between alternative possibilities according to probabilistic laws. [...] The second level at which we detect the operations of mind is the level of direct human experience. [...] [I]t is reasonable to believe in the existence of a third level of mind, a mental component of the universe. If we believe in this mental component and call it God, then we can say that we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus”

We are all nodes within God’s brain, animate and inanimate matter alike. Just like when we think and information travels from neurotransmitter to receiver (or upon any action of our nervous system) to become a thought, the same can be said of all processes in the universe— it’s all information moving around in God’s brain and body. Different nodes have different kinds and intensities of information. Any transfer of energy is also a transfer of information, change. Everything that has an affect is a thought of God’s, and what God thinks is.

We have to live within an ever changing world. We can’t just morph into another being or grant friends wishes, because God doesn’t want it; in other words, because it goes against the laws of nature described by physics and chemistry. We are part of these rules. Indeed, humans impose their laws on the rest of nature, but we have to exist alongside other forces as well. We can only learn to impose our will on nature by learning how it works. Just as human flight, for instance, only occurred after some understanding of aerodynamics, any innovation that comes along is due to a better use or understanding of laws that already exist, not trying to change them.

Consent is not something that exists exclusively for humanity, but something that has been developed by the universe naturally through a process of evolution, and which extends to all substance. No matter how we arrange our human contracts and associations, we must always remain under the laws of the universe— the collective whole of existence; God.

God is nothing but the mass sum of everything— all of the choices that have been made by being. From the unconscious gravitation of the planets, the conscious love between humans, and even the murder committed by governments, that which succeeds is nature’s will for the moment*. If we want something, we have to make it in accordance with what nature allows, which is oftentimes more than we understand. We must ‘be one with The Tao’ or ‘The Way’ the universe is moving, and not in opposition to it. The story of the universe is the story of God, Nature, Existence. Let’s begin now with our material past.

PAST

We have discussed time’s relativity, perception of life and death, and even God. These concepts are important for our analysis of consent, upon which I shall establish the past. Like the present is, and the future will be, the past was established upon the even more distant past, all the way back until the ‘beginning’ of time.

In this section, Past, we will look to see how the universe materially formed and how matter developed and evolved into humanity.

We shall begin to study consent of such a variety that it is scarcely understood to be consent at all— the physical laws of the universe— that which is desired by its inanimate parts, lifeless matter.

It is only when one can view the universe as God, all of existence and potential, that one can see inanimate matter as having any kind of consent, will, or desire. One only has to look so long before we see that the universe is organizing itself—it happens on our scale too. By being in motion the universe demonstrates its desires. The universe has created from itself stars, planets, microorganisms, and even humanity, which all exist as a culminated effort of time. If not for this process, human awareness and conscious consent could never have formed. The past serves as the foundation from which we must work in the present to direct the future. By studying the evolution of the universe we are inevitably studying the evolution of consent and of consciousness in general.

From our foundation in time and in physical evolution we will follow into biology and discuss what makes life different (from most things we see as dead or not living). We will discuss the most basic principles of evolution and from there follow the evolution of life to the near present.

Evolution is the process by which we have come into being. It’s important to understand how processes work if we want to influence systems; one can not just jump from one system into another, it takes coordination and incremental change. We will follow this incremental change from the beginning of the universe and through biological evolution of DNA to the arrival of modern humanity.

Evolution may be seen as a sort of ‘spiritual journey’ if one considers the fact that the energy in our bodies has never been created or destroyed, but has been transformed infinitely and combined in numerous ways. That’s a discussion that will be had toward the end of the book, but first we must set our material and biological foundations, followed by our present understanding of the human sciences. We’ll begin now with the Big Bang.

MATTER

Without a beginning point in time we are left with a choice of where to begin our understanding of it, so let's start at the beginning of what we can comprehend—our known Universe. It is suggested by most scientific theories that the Universe started from a single event in space-time called the Big Bang. The whole universe expanded from a single point of existence. According to the Big Bang model of cosmology, the Universe expanded from a hot dense state and continues to expand in modern times. A common analogy explains that space is expanding and carrying galaxies in it like raisins in a rising loaf of bread, each getting further apart as it bakes.

The Big Bang arose from a point of singularity. Singularities occur when a property, such as density, becomes infinite. The truest singularity (one that contains everything) would encompass the whole universe in a single place and time, as it was before the Big Bang. Examples of smaller singularities include white and black holes. At their centers, these ‘objects’ approach infinite density; not matter side-by-side, but in one location. Very dense; in fact, infinitely so. It would be like if you and I could share the same space at the same time (but that space was the tiniest possible place not-even-imaginable, with zero volume).

It is possible that quantum theories of gravity will create a new understanding of singularities in the future, perhaps redefining them altogether. More than likely the relativity theories on the larger scale (seen now as incomplete) will remain less affected on their own level, while describing singularities with a united view of gravity will complete the picture further— just as Relativity did for Newton’s laws.

Some black holes, the best known example of a singularity, appear to have a larger radius than others, though they all share only three characteristics;

“[…N]o matter what the particulars may be of any body that collapses to form a black hole—it may be as intricate, complicated and Byzantine as one likes, composed of the most exotic materials—the final result after the system has settled down to equilibrium will be identical in every respect to a black hole that formed from the collapse of any other body having the same total mass, angular momentum and electric charge. For this reason Chandrasekhar (1983) called black holes ‘the most perfect objects in the universe.’”

The Universe is expanding from the Big Bang. No one knows exactly how the Big Bang happened, but its existence is suggested by Hubble telescope observations and by most mathematical theories. Mathematics are largely involved in these observations and have led to breakthroughs in astrophysics, such as accurately determining the Universe’s rate of expansion.

A common analogy is to imagine that the tip of a balloon is the point of singularity from which the Big Bang began, expanding space and time into nothingness. The Universe is represented by the space inside of the balloon. There is also what is known as the Big Crunch, though. If the Big Bang is the release of energy from singularity and the creation of the Universe, the Big Crunch is the capture of it and the end of the Universe— a return to singularity. Imagine all of the air in the balloon is the Universe. It got there from a point of singularity— the mouthpiece— and it will leave from a point of singularity— the pinhole. If this pinhole was attached to the mouthpiece of another balloon, you could see the transfer of energy as it expands. If it was capable of sucking the air in the balloon all the way through, such would be the process of space-time; constantly transitioning between its alpha and omega points— big bangs and big crunches— with singularity being both at the same time. That's not to say that there are not many of these pinholes in a complex system.

Cosmologists have long debated the possibility of an oscillating universe because of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy (decay) of an isolated system that is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Thermodynamic equilibrium would be the state at which a system is secure and unchanging. For instance, when an ice cube is set in a room of normal temperature it begins to melt. That is because the ice loses its structure. The particles in ice vibrate slower and more harmoniously than that of liquid water, allowing it to take solid shape. Likewise, when the liquid water is exposed to higher temperatures the vibrations of the particles become more chaotic, allowing it to evaporate into a more gaseous form of water called vapor or steam. When ice in a living room has melted into liquid water, but does not turn to vapor, the liquid would be the equilibrium state of water under those conditions.

Stating the second law of thermodynamics, scientists have felt that the Universe will eventually reach a maximum expansion and an equilibrium point will be found at a state called “heat death” with specific theoretical versions called the Big Rip or Big Freeze. A heat death would be a point where there is no more energy to keep the Universe expanding or to sustain any kind of life. A Big Rip would take it further to an annihilation of everything into nothingness. If the second law of thermodynamics is correct, and remains unbalanced, these are very probable ends to our universe. What if the law was to be balanced by one completely opposite, however?

The second law of thermodynamics does allow for a lack of entropy under the conditions of absolute zero (zero degrees Kelvin), at which point a perfect crystal would be formed. The third law of thermodynamics states that as a process approaches zero degrees its processes and entropy also approach their minimum values. A situation like the Big Freeze could leave us with a process by which information is collected again, at zero entropy or less. According to some sources, any colder than absolute zero starts leading to negative temperatures and new kinds of matter.

If chaos is measured in terms of entropy, what is order measured in? If entropy is the process of ice to steam, what is the process of steam to ice? Entropy doesn’t have an answer for the creation of the Universe, ice, or anything for that matter, only its destruction. Then there must be a law complementary to entropy. This law has been deemed “syntropy” or “negative entropy” and it can be defined as the measurement of the degree of organization internal to any system, formed by interacting components. It is the collecting of free energy (add to index). It is still not always taught as mainstream science, however, due to large misapplication of its principles in the study of T-symmetry and causality, which make it difficult to measure.

According to Luigi Fantappie, a well respected Italian mathematician in the mid 20th century, however, it is logical that syntropy would not be able to be measured, as it is largely traveling backwards in time and we are unable to recognize it because we are moving forward in time;

“Syntropic phenomena, which are[…] represented by those strange solutions of the ‘anticipated potentials’, should obey two opposite principles of finality (moved by a final cause placed in the future, and not by a cause which is placed in the past): differentiation and non-causable in a laboratory. This last characteristic explained why this type of phenomena had never been reproduced in a laboratory, and its finalistic properties justified the refusal among scientists, who accepted without any doubt the assumption that finalism is a "metaphysical" principle, outside Science and Nature. This assumption obstructed the way to a calm investigation of the real existence of this second type of phenomena; an investigation which I accepted to carry out, even though I felt as if I were falling in a abyss, with incredible consequences and conclusions. It suddenly seemed as if the sky were falling apart, or at least the certainties on which mechanical science had based its assumptions. It appeared to me clear that these ‘syntropic’, finalistic phenomena which lead to differentiation and could not be reproduced in a laboratory, were real, and existed in nature, as I could recognize them in the living systems. The properties of this new law, opened consequences which were just incredible and which could deeply change the biological, medical, psychological, and social sciences.”

The forward motion of the physical universe is described in terms of death (entropy); everything moves toward disorder. This is causality. Life, though, throws in a complication. The biological arrow of time is reversed. It is subject to retrocausality. This is something that is still argued about in physics, although it is becoming much more clear.* Life evades entropy, the forward motion of time, and instead works with syntropy, the movement backward. Life is creation. “The physical arrow of time is an arrow of entropy,” says Amit Goswami, a theoretical physicist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Oregon, who describes himself as an Idealist and a Monist as well as a Hindu. He goes on;

“Biology also gives an empirical arrow of time. Biological organisms evolve toward increasing complexity. But biological complexity consists of more order and thus is the opposite of entropy, which is disorder. So the two arrows are not compatible.”

Erwin Schrödinger, a Nobel Prize Winner in Physics mentioned earlier, had these beliefs on the subject;

"[...]living matter, while not eluding the ‘laws of physics’ as established up to date, is likely to involve ‘other laws of physics’ hitherto unknown, which however, once they have been revealed, will form just as integral a part of science as the former.”

Even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged that life grows in complexity, though he has gotten some flack for it. In a New York Times article, Mr. Dawkins says, “There are endless progressions in evolution.” He goes on to say that, “When the ancestors of the cheetah first began pursuing the ancestors of the gazelle, neither of them could run as fast as they can today. What you are looking at is the progressive evolutionary product of an arms race.” In the future, Dawkins doesn’t necessarily rule out the idea of “god-like” creatures, as long as they are products of evolution.

These kinds of findings could blur such lines as those in the mind-body problem and other arguments of dualism and monism. If time can move backward and it is this motion backward that causes life we have gotten very close to understanding what is truly meant by the ‘spirit’ that animates life and the ‘mind’ that governs consciousness. Idealism may just be the future, and realism the past.

It has been said that on a small scale the rule tends toward entropy but on the large scale the rule tends toward syntropy. This makes a lot of sense and has the ability to explain the existence— both creation and destruction— of our universe. Syntropy has many starting points that come together and entropy has only one which expands apart. Perhaps the universe is expanding from a point of singularity, and coming from such a small scale of existence it is moving entropically until it reaches maximum expansion at a point that I will call plurality or multiplicity, and others have called the Big Rip or Big Freeze, at which point it will become subject to the laws of syntropy until it returns to singularity. This would also work hand in hand with the difficulty involved in uniting quantum and classical mechanics. On a small scale things are disordered but tend toward order, syntropy, and on a large scale things are ordered and tend toward disorder, entropy.

Cosmologists are still working out the details, and models of continual self-sustaining cycles are gaining fair reception again due to new theories of quantum mechanics from both string theory and loop quantum gravity, which are two competing models of existence that both have interesting perspectives. Even Stephen Hawking, the mainstream theoretical physicist and cosmologist, has stated “because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing."

One theory of continual cycles is the Fecund Universes Theory proposed by Lee Smolin. It suggests that biological laws apply on all scales and can be understood as "cosmological natural selection." The theory states that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side," whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives birth to as many new universes as it has black holes. The theory then contains the evolutionary ideas of reproductions and mutations of universes. Black and white holes may just be a possibility for multiple big crunches and big bangs. Lee Smolin, the originator of the Fecund Universe model has said, and I echo, “One possibility is: God is nothing but the power of the universe to organize itself."

Stars form out of interstellar clouds that eventually consolidate through gravity to form the various forms of stellar bodies. There is much heat developed in nuclear reactions, and this creates new gas pressure that finds equilibrium in what is called a “main sequence star”, a category of which our Sun is a part, being stable enough for life to develop here on Earth. When the core of a star’s gravity becomes more powerful than the pressure of the gas surrounding it, the star will collapse, pulling in its planets and sometimes other nearby stars. Sometimes smaller stars, called white dwarves, will accrete enough material from a companion star, or larger stars will create enough fusion, that they explode into a supernova. Less massive stars, still large enough for a supernova, will leave behind various core remnants such as neutron stars or black holes. If the star is massive enough, however, it will leave behind no remnant at all and all will be dispersed.

Could it be that the cycle of the stars reflects a larger picture of the cosmos at large? We know that on the quantum level, free will and spontaneity are the rule, but the larger the scale of the operation the more order tends to be the scenario. Just as stars eventually form from clouds of gas and solid material, and when they become too massive they explode, perhaps our universe at large acts in a very similar manner. Our Big Bang is seemingly sending us to some sort of thermodynamic homogeneity, some sort of cloud of a universe. Perhaps the Big Bang, as we know it, was a white hole, which is just the equivalent of a cosmological supernova at large, with the universe in its state of plurality acting in place of an interstellar cloud and eventually combining all of existence into a mega singularity, which then acts as a supernova or white hole, bursting existence until it runs out of mass and disappears. .

Even black holes may eventually lose their structure to Hawking radiation, and their syntropy may serve a larger purpose of entropy— that of further reducing mass to its component energy. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dark energy that is to credit for our current expansion rate has a similar origin.*

The Big Bang itself is simply the entropy of the most complete singularity our universe has thus far known. Out of this thermodynamic equilibrium, though, syntropic forces and quantum spontaneity would dictate that the equilibrium would eventually be lost, similar to the way gas tends to cluster. The spontaneity of quantum mechanics would eventually create imbalance and the syntropic forces would break the equilibrium of the entropic ones. Just as entropy is the expulsion of material from a dense state to one less structured and more spread out, from one point to many, essentially, syntropy works just the opposite— it comes from many points and joins as one. This leaves room for the redevelopment of black holes, perhaps in new forms, not to mention other celestial bodies that exhibit syntropic features, such as gravity.

Think about all of the clusters that formed after the Big Bang… we have galaxies that have supermassive black holes in their centers and command great balance with their gravity, maintaining multitudes of solar systems in their orbit. In those solar systems there are many planets and asteroids which orbit around a, or sometimes a few, stars. Around them orbits various satellites and rings of material such as our moon and Saturn’s spectacular rings. These celestial bodies themselves are but matter and, if large enough, they rotate around a central core. Matter is but molecules; clusters of atoms. These atoms are made of, and are orbited by, particles— which in turn are properties that remain a great debate among cosmologists and physicists. These debates sometimes rely on hundreds of dimensions for their explanation, such as An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, that uses complex patterns for its examples, and others, such as Superstring Theory, which tries to explain reality with only 11 dimensions that are very tightly wrapped up beyond our visual comprehension. Regardless, we can see that existence is composed of parts, and these parts make up larger ones, and so on and so forth backwards and forwards in time and space.

Even with all of the mathematical theory, the earliest phases of the Big Bang are still subject to much speculation, but in the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously with high energy density, temperatures, and pressures and quickly expanded and cooled. Cosmic inflation was caused that made the universe grow exponentially. Due to the high temperatures, the motions of particles moved at relativistic speeds. Particles and anti-particles were created and destroyed in collisions. Baryogenesis entailed the prevalence of matter over antimatter in the present universe.

The universe grew in size and fell in temperature. With the temperature too low to create new proton-antiproton pairs a mass annihilation soon followed. This left much less of the original protons and neutrons, and no antiparticles. Around a second into the bang something similar happened for electrons and positrons. The remaining protons, neutrons, and electrons no longer moved at such high speeds.

After about 380,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms. Over time the denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed matter attracted other nearby matter with gravity and thus grew even denser forming gas, stars, galaxies, etc. This gave rise to our solar system where life developed.

We can see that up until now the only consent that can be said to exist is the fact that there is something happening, and therefore it is being “allowed” to happen by the concordance of the laws of physics which have made things the way they are now. We’re looking for a form of consent that holds deeper meaning for us as humans than the laws of gravity and magnetism, however, so we’ll search further for that deeper form of consent that we know as “conscious will” such as that experienced by people.

LIFE

Out of the same exact material that made up the singularity before the Big Bang came something absolutely amazing— life— with all of its order and its self-organization, capable of passing along its information through space and time, and past the point of its own existence through the passing of its genes and, if it has culture, its memes as well. Though gravity and magnetism are also easily understood examples, life is the most obvious example of syntropy on our scale of existence. This was very clear to Luigi Fantappie, who developed mathematics on the principle;

“Let us conclude by looking at what we can say about life. What makes life different is the presence of syntropic qualities: finalities, goals, and attractors. Now as we consider causality the essence of the entropic world, it is natural to consider finality the essence of the syntropic world. It is therefore possible to say that the essence of life is final causes, syntropy. Living means tending to attractors [...] the law of life is not the law of mechanical causes; this is the law of non-life, the law of death, the law of entropy; the law which dominates life is the law of finalities, the law of syntropy.”

It is apparent in the food chain that life is a syntropic force. Organisms are constantly acting in syntropic manners as they breathe, eat, and grow. As new species out compete the old, more organized forms of life tend to feed off of the less organized, though, of course, there are examples, such as parasitism and scavenging, where seemingly less organized life forms feed off of higher organized life. It’s important to remember, however, that the level of organization is relative to the situation, in many respects. In some ways as technology develops, for example, it becomes simpler in design. That’s because people are constantly applying new principles to make things work better. In a way, as technology develops and becomes less complicated or smaller or less demanding of power, it seems less organized, but is still more efficient. I’d equate efficiency with organization, or at least the progress of organization.

Even though insects will mainly be on the level of the primary consumers, at times they may fill roles of parasitism that place them above even some mammals, at least in the role of their feeding. It’s also important to take into mind the insects’ predators. They may also fall victim to carnivorous plants, such as the famed Venus Fly Trap. For this reason, the food chain is more of a web than a pyramid.

The trophic pyramid, however, does best at showing levels of organization relative to the amount of energy being used. Though insects may live off of the blood of some mammals, they will never, as individuals, be able to organize as much biomass in their life as a mammal that they feed on, and so will never reach the same level of organization on the energy pyramid. In this way, a mammal will maintain more efficiency in its dealings with energy than will any of its parasites.

A tree, however, may be able to deal with more biomass than some animals, which again makes a hierarchy on a pyramid hard to realize, until we take into mind also the forms of energy being used, as well as the perspectives the energy creates. The tree does not have as much perspective, at least according to our own perspective in space and time, because it does not react to injury in the same way. It has no, or less, ability and/or desire to run from danger. It will grow toward the sunlight, and may grow away from harm, but the process is much slower and less developed than that of an animal’s pain sensories that initiate fight or flight responses. The tree has no eyes to see danger, no legs with which to run, ears to listen, or mouth with which to communicate. For this reason it is less organized in its self-preservation, and though it preserves itself by supplying more than it needs to survive and by passing along its genes, it exists at the will of those who choose to maintain it instead of destroy it. Let me remind the reader that a tree has never consciously taken the life of a human, but the opposite has been true many times over. Humans maintain their position as an apex animal— having no real predators of our own due to civilization, aside from infection. This does, however, put a deal of responsibility on maintenance of the base-life on which the higher organisms, such as ourselves, subsist.

The higher forms of animal life have gotten where they have by getting the things that they need from outside forces, such as food, air, water, shelter. In order to do so they must subsist off of the lower forms of life, find locations for rehydration, suck the oxygen from the air, and find a shelter or the materials to construct one.

All of these actions, good or bad, positive or negative, social or anti-social, can be defined as one thing: want. Consciousness seems to be a fundamental part of being alive, and want is the expression of it. All consciousness exhibits want. Life in all of its forms may as well (possibly, but not surely, with exception of some autotrophs, which are capable of creating their own food, but may exhibit by some definitions, ‘want’ for their energy source, sunlight, by the fact that it is consumed for energy). Had I not any want I would have died long ago of lack of food, sleep, and air. I would have no need for love or friendship. However, the opposite seems to be the case. I do want, as all multicellular organisms must here on Earth in order to subsist.

Animals get their name by the fact that they want. The word ‘animal’ comes from the Latin ‘animalis’ which means ‘having breath.’ Animals desire to live, to breathe.

It is almost as if want, will, or desire is a fifth force present in the current universe, alongside gravity, electro-magnetism, and the strong and weak forces. Some speculate that gravity alone is not strong enough to bring the universe back to a point of singularity, but if new forces are arising in the entropy of the physical universe as it moves forward in time— such as in gravity in black holes (which are highly syntropic and were not present during the Big Bang), or progressively cooler temperatures— could it be possible that the desire of life to keep sustaining itself could be a cosmic force in need of the same reverence of gravity or magnetism, radioactive decay or the binding of an atom’s nucleus?

I don’t see why not. Want is the desire to have something. It is a concept of future gratification. The reason this is important is because if syntropy is to be recognized as a force parallel to entropy, it must move backward in time, at least in the entropic state of the universe. I think that want exhibits such characteristics as well, by signaling what may happen before it actually does. It is the light retrieved from our visually stimulated desires that direct them, and as a cosmic constant, light seems to be capable of showing us a certain degree of our possible future before we actually choose it. The same may be said for our sense of sight or taste. We see the light reflection of an item, or smell the object, and we can judge for ourselves whether we want to proceed in acquiring it. Concepts and goals are finalities and when they can be met the present has been determined through intention.

On the smaller scale, life seems to be exhibiting large amounts of syntropy, but this syntropy always comes at a cost; it contributes to the entropy of its surroundings. When we eat food, as humans, we contribute to the structure of our body, but we will eventually lose those cells as well as flush much of what we have eaten literally down the toilet, contributing to a loss in the system of the original food item. We break perfectly well structured and living plant or animal material down into our emissions and rebuild them into flesh. Thus, syntropy on the small scale may contribute to entropy on the large scale, and in this case would only contribute to the larger entropy of the universe, again confirming the second law of thermodynamics, at least in the entropic state of the universe.

Regardless of whether or not want should be categorized as a separate kind of force, it will serve as our next step of consent. Organic consent has its roots in desire. When an organism ‘wants’ something, in a way, consciously or unconsciously, it gives its consent for it. Though consent is deeply rooted in desire we’re still looking for a more conscious and human-applicable form of it, but we have not gotten that far into the story yet.

There are probably many more forces than are being currently recognized in connection with the laws of entropy and syntropy. If life is a result of natural laws of nature, though, how can its syntropy be explained in a more case-specific and biological manner outside of mathematics? Chemistry may hold the answer.
An experiment was held in 1953. A mixture of ammonia, methane, water vapor, and hydrogen was given an energy supply of ultraviolet light and electricity to mimic the effects of the rays of the sun and the electricity of lightning on the early Earth's surface. They managed to produce hydrogen cyanide, glycine, and analine. Glycine and analine are both 2 of the 20 amino acid building blocks that make up protein molecules. By 1968 every known amino acid had been formed in such experiments. In 1961 a biochemist added hydrogen cyanide to his starting mixture and produced amino acids joined together in short chains similar to the links in proteins. Even more interesting was that purines, basic building blocks of DNA, were formed. Chemistry has shown in its processes that organic material can come from inorganic compounds. This is how life could have begun on Earth.

Even bacteria use DNA to record their code and RNA and protein to use these instructions to grow and self-replicate. Montmorillonite is a type of clay known to cause micelles (lipid spheres) to form together into vesicles. These structures resemble cell membranes. It may also help nucleotides to assemble into RNA which, under the right circumstances, will reproduce themselves. A world with species but no individuals could have been formed by Ribozymes. Horizontal gene transfers and mutations would mean that offspring in each generation would probably have different genomes from those of their parents. DNA would later replace RNA, which is more stable and can build longer genomes, expanding the range of capabilities of a single organism. The oldest evidence of life on Earth, understood as fossilized bacteria, dates past 3,000 million years ago. These bacteria probably reproduced asexually through RNA.

The complexity of molecules found in animal tissues is a testament to the way biology evolves complexity. Organic compounds are much more complex than inorganic ones. It takes the syntropy of life to manufacture these kinds of substances in its protoplasm. Where the molecular formula for water is H2O, for instance, the formula for cholesterol is C27H45OH.

Within the DNA are all of the genes a species holds. These genes can change over time. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, or by exposure to mutagens such as ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, mutagenic chemicals, or viruses, or they can be induced by the organism itself by cellular processes such as hypermutation. Some feel that there are future attractors that cause a species to mutate in certain ways.

If a mutation helps an individual withstand natural selection the gene sequence will be beneficial and will generally be passed on to the group. If they are a hazard they will be selected out. Mutations followed a series of events from the first living organism to our human lives today.

When an organism faces a new environment and is subject to natural selection its kind must be able to adapt in order to survive. New gene combinations are selected in, and when those genes are passed on, making it better able to survive, it is called adaptation. If an organism adapts to its environment rapidly enough in, or is put under outside influence of, isolation, it can become so genetically different that it will become a separate species, unable to reproduce viable offspring. This process is called speciation.

It seems that sex is maintained because it improves the quality of the genetic sequence despite reducing the overall number of offspring. In order for sex to be evolutionarily advantageous it must be associated with a significant increase in the fitness of new generations. One of the most widely accepted explanations for the advantage of sex lies in the creation of genetic variation.

Sexual reproduction can bring together mutations that are beneficial. Sex aids in spreading the advantageous traits to generations in the future. The more options of advantages the better! Organisms are constantly faced with new conditions and thus species benefit from an ability to adapt. Sex also acts to bring together currently inadequate mutations to bear severely unfit individuals, relative to their present conditions, that then can not pass through ecological or sexual selection and are thus eliminated from the population. It also creates new gene combinations that may be more fit than previously existing ones. One widely used example of why gene preference would evolve sex is the ability to ward off parasites. Sex may also lead to reduced competition among relatives, such as in the Hymenoptera and other eusocial animals.

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner in order for their species to survive. This gives need for sexual selection, the choosing of mates. Natural selection selects an individual out only when it stops the sexual reproduction of the individual before it occurs. As long as the individual successfully reproduces it has not been selected out of the gene pool.

We are greatly involved in the process of natural selection. It’s important to see how it works so that we can influence its direction in the future. Every single evolutionary process can be defined in terms of selection. In biology, there exists an “artificial” selection and two kinds of natural selection.

Artificial selection (in reality, nothing is ‘artificial’) is that which is intended for human use, and is thus dictated by human consent. Such is the propagation of bean cultivars or dog breeds. It is not called natural selection, because these traits were not chosen by their environment (outside of their owners, which actually are natural, which is why I hate this term, but you get the concept) and it is not called sexual selection because these dogs did not choose each other outside of human control. The humans are making the sexual selection for the dogs. If dogs were bred so far apart that they formed a ring species they may be capable of forming a different species altogether. I have often wondered, but not researched successfully, how close a Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua are to forming a ring species.

The correlating image is used to show an example of a ring species. In a ring species a population will develop along an environmental cline, say around a lake or a mountain for example, starting with group A. It will start making its way around the cline, from A all the way to F, adapting to the new surroundings as it makes its way around and it becomes isolated from the other groups. What makes it a ring species is this; population A and B can surely reproduce together. Population A may be able to mate with any of the other populations other than F. If it could mate with F it would not be a ring species. In turn, F can mate with as many as four, going all the way to B, but can not mate with A. They are still the same species, because the groups all overlap in some way or another, despite the fact that A and F ultimately can not reproduce together. If the connecting populations were to be selected out, however, A and F would compose a new species altogether.

Ecological selection is determined by the individual's ability to last and reproduce in an environment. It includes all of the forces of predation, resources, immunity, and anything related to one’s ability to exist in one’s environment long enough to reproduce. If an organism can not survive long enough to reproduce it has been selected out ecologically.
Sexual selection is determined by the individual's ability to carry, and find a mate with, successful genes, that can withstand ecological selection once passed to their shared offspring.

Humans make choices of sexual selection based on their partner's emotional traits and stability as well as their physical fitness, among other things. People want partners for various reasons. They want someone who is capable mentally, but also physically for survival. For this reason, humans tend to be attracted toward the golden ratio and balance in the human body. Men and women with the proper ratio are commonly noticed to be more attractive and fertile. The influence of ecological selection on our sexual choices seems to be a leading candidate for the reason this is so. These ratios and symmetries have been beneficial enough that ecological selection has selected them in, as well as the genes that give sexual preference to those characteristics.

All of these selective processes ensure that the fittest of the individuals, relative to their surroundings (social and ecological), will survive to pass on their genes. When new gene sequences arise they become subject to all kinds of competition, and sexual competition largely ensures health— both emotional and physical— for the offspring.

Social selection is composed of all of the choices one makes socially, such as who to have, or not to have, friendships or alliances with. Our genetics are all subject to the consent of our peers, as well as that of our non-human surroundings and sexual relationships. Those with more friends or power have more help succeeding. Those who succeed are more attractive to potential mates.

Forms of selection, such as social and sexual selection, are a good example of downward causality in evolution, whereby a conscious actor participates in the decision over what will continue to pass on its code. Consciousness directs evolution.

If it is the norm desired by society to know how to whistle due to the fact it is used in the local language, such as in Silbo Gomero and many more, individuals who know how to do so will be favored over those without the ability. The same can be said for our moral systems. In a society that values love and respect, those who are inclined to be caring and decent will be chosen by society as friends and sexual partners. This is what has allowed us to establish societies and exist in relatively peaceful circumstances together.

Culture is one way that humans select the traits by which we will move toward genetically. By creating social pressures— ethics— culture has developed a means by which humanity will select its own path in evolution. It's the same way that humans have selected dogs artificially over the ages. We have created small ones for companionship, large ones to work, and those that fetch for hunting. We have also selected them based upon their ability to do well with our children and ourselves. We projected a goal, and worked toward that goal. Culture is a way for humans to make selective choices about ways of living. We choose cultures because we appreciate something about them. Those memes that are most beneficial will be maintained, while those that are malignant will tend to be deselected.

Both sexual and social selection may play a leading role in the development of ethics, whereby consent is extended to those beyond us and our own offspring. Naturally, in more conscious life forms those organisms that can share mutual respect will be more successful in their personal relationships, and may gain a great amount of success from this.

Dyer Lum, in The Basis of Morals argues that ethics are not based on individualistic hedonism or on utilitarianism, among some, but instead ethics come from sex and replicability. He implies that self-preservation is better seen at work on a social scale, and that laws such as The Law of Equal Freedom are facilitated by our general functions, which arise in social relations, such as sexuality.

There are many traits that will allow an individual to be selected in or out socially and sexually. Whether these things are good or bad is up to the perspective being held.

Though it seems harsh, there is something beautiful to be recognized in evolution: It means that there is no objective truth except for subjectivity at this point in time; there is nothing better or worse, except relative to one or another’s opinion. We are all capable of selecting each other in or out, but it does not mean we are right or wrong in doing so, only that we have preferences for certain situations and conditions. We also have the ability to go outside of the norm and to change it altogether, if others can be convinced to follow our path and switch that part of our culture. Different combinations of genes or memes work best in different scenarios.

One wouldn’t expect an Inuit man to have adapted to the plains of Africa. He has a much different body type. Just the same, one wouldn’t expect to find a member of the !Kung people adapted to the harsh arctic tundra of northern Canada. These people are equally developed, in my view, to deal with their own conditions genetically. However, they are also incapable of existing outside of their native habitats without the protection of technology. They are relatively equal, though they share different circumstances. They are both well-suited for one environment, and clearly not as well for another, and yet it is this difference between them that makes them the same. Technology changes this drastically, but before its existence genetic adaptation played a much greater role in sustaining human life.

Where did those genes come from?

All life on Earth likely shares a single common ancestor, although this is only speculation. It is possible, of course, that life’s development in the universe is a natural process and that the development of life is inevitable and will reoccur time and again. We do know, however, that there are three main domains of life; bacteria, archea, and eukaryote. Bacteria and archea have been classified together as prokaryotes, a group of organisms without cell nuclei. Eukaryotes do have a nucleus and can form much larger multicellular creatures, such as ourselves.

Through a long progression of many mutations and selective processes, eukaryotes formed into the following kingdoms; animalia, fungi, amoebozoa, plantae, chromalveolata, rhizaria, and excavate. Excavate, rhizaria, and most amoebozoa are unicellular and microscopic organisms, while chromalveolata contain multicellular organisms such as some water molds and algae, among others. Plants, animals, and fungi all make up part of the world we are most familiar with and consciously interact with on a more or less day-to-day basis; multicellular life.

The development of sexual reproduction led greatly toward more advanced life-forms but it was a long process from bacteria to humans. Choanoflagellates, a eukaryotic organism often forming in colonies, are of the oldest known relatives of animals. From these, or similar forms of life, developed sponges or sponge-like creatures that composed the first multicellular animal.

Nerves, muscles, and movement may have started in the cnidarians, of which sea aenomes and jellyfish are a part. Eyes may have also developed around this time. This era is the first to maintain defined bodies and radial symmetry.

Flatworms developed afterward, and with them came brains and bilateral symmetry. Acorn worms are sometimes considered the link between vertebrates and invertebrates.

Ostracoderms, jawless fish related to hagfish and lampreys, developed later on as the first vertebrates. The placoderms were the first fish to develop jaws. Tetrapods, later on, developed legs in fresh waters.

From tetrapods, like ichthyostega, developed amphibians, which were capable of walking on land and having lungs to breathe air.

From amphibians developed the reptiles, which have much more advanced nervous systems. Reptiles split into diapsids, which later developed the modern reptiles, and synapsids, from which mammals developed. Therapsids are the direct ancestors of the mammals.

The first actual mammals were shrew-like creatures that laid eggs, much like the modern platypus does. Eventually placental birth became the norm. Some of these shrew-like animals started to develop the ability to climb and forage in trees. Among them, the Plesiadapiformes is very likely to contain the ancestoral species of all the primates.

The primates are split into two groups; wet-nosed (platyrrhini) and dry-nosed (catarrhini). The wet nosed primates include animals such as lemurs and the prosimians. The dry nosed include apes and monkeys. The platyrrhini make up a group known as New World Monkeys, while catarrhini are divided into New World Monkeys and apes. Apes developed trichromatic color vision.

The classification is further divided into greater and lesser apes. An animal known as Proconsul africanus is a possible ancestor of both kinds. Humans are considered one of the great apes— part of the group Hominidae.

As you can see, evolution is a long enduring process that incrementally allows for progress to be made. The probability in finding such order as found in biology, in a universe governed by entropy, is less likely than throwing a hundred toothpicks in the air only to see them stack themselves on one another upon landing. Life is remarkable because of its ability to maintain organization and increase in complexity.

At this stage in history, humanity is the culmination of biological evolution. We are by no means the end result, but we are likely the foundation the end result depends on being built upon. It’s important to know where we come from so we may continue the processes by which progress has been made. For humanity, this progress has largely been made by the self-directed evolution of sexual and social selection.

HUMANITY

Generally when we think of a human being we think of a modern one, but a little common sense would make a distinction between modern humans and their ancestors. Humanity has existed long before us in our modern form, and humans have been categorized into a separate genus together due to a rapid increase in cranial capacity, as shown through fossil evidence from long ago.

This rapid brain development not only helped with reasoning skills that developed technology later on, but it also served to increase social and sexual selection in the genus, which we determined earlier was largely responsible for the development of ethics.

Before we get into modern humans and our relationships we have a long way to go through evolution, so lets take a look at some of our relatives.

Our ancestors lived long before the modern humans, Homo sapiens. Our evolution has been traced through the primates and the closest living relative we have is the chimpanzee, which shared a common ancestor with us around five to eight million years ago and is the only living species other than humans considered of the tribe Hominini. There are two main types; one is called the Common Chimp and the other is the Bonobo Chimp.

Bonobos are very tolerable with one another. This may be due to their sexual habits, where they will do such things as settle disagreements with sexual favors. The Common Chimpanzee, on the other hand, has a society that is based on multi-male polygyny, with a few males defending and reproducing with many females, and it is more violent. Bonobos are different from other large primates in the distribution of their sexual relationships, largely due to their sexual dimorphism.

Sexual dimorphism is the systemic differences between individuals of different sexes of the same species. It is attributed to the size difference in males and females. In Bonobos there is less difference than in Common Chimpanzees and this can account for the way their sexual relationships are distributed— more equally.

Another example and relative of ours, the gorilla, has a society based on unimale polygyny, with one male defending and reproducing with many females within a controlled area. The last of the Hominidae (of which includes chimps, gorillas, and humans), the orangutan, has a unimale polygyny that is considered exploded because the females don't even associate together, even when away from the single male in an area.

Primate society started before Homo sapiens, the modern human, and thus set the conditions for human psychology and association. It can be suggested, when looking at the history of the Hominids, that humans are moving toward more equally distributed sexual relationships than those of the past, which were strongly based on polygyny.

The gibbon, which is monogamous, shares an ancestor with all of us Hominidae, but humans developed in an order sharing ancestors with gibbons (monogamy), to orangutans (exploded unimale polygyny), to gorillas (unimale polygyny), to Common Chimpanzees (multimale polygyny), and Bonobos (polygamy)— in that order.* Each sexual relationship is a reflection of the differences in size. Humans, like gibbons and Bonobo Chimpanzees, have less sexual dimorphism in relation to size than most polygynous species of primates. This has accompanied more evenly distributed relationships such as serial monogamy (in which one individual will have a series of relationships but only nest with one at a time), lasting monogamy, and distributed polygamy such as polyamory.

There are some remnants of polyandry in human societies but they are rare. At one time polygyny offered male protection from predators to pregnant females, but the advancement of our minds and the development of technology have made the need for such a division of labor in reproduction obsolete and our relationships show this. Technology plays a large role in our lives as humans. Isn’t it beautiful to be human and not a gorilla? We may still have some remnants of sexual dimorphism and male violence but, unlike the gorilla, we are growing passed it as we make it unnecessary in our changing and self-imposed environment, and as our social, cultural, and sexual selections dictate. Before we get into the psychology of modern humans, let’s take a look at the way we may have developed from our ancient common ancestor with the genus Pan and that of the modern species of human, Homo sapiens. This will be important to understand if we are to apply evolution to human behavior later on.

The taxonomical name of the Bonobo Chimpanzee is Pan paniscus. Their DNA is more than 98% identical to that of our own, making them closer in relation to humans than to gorillas. One study on the similarity of critical DNA suggests that up to 99.4% are identical. There is still controversy, however.

Some scientists argue that the Bonobo and Common Chimpanzee are so closely related to humans that they should be classified with the Human genus, Homo, as Homo paniscus, Homo sylvestris, or Homo arboreus. Another proposal is that it is humanity that is the misnomer and instead it should be reclassified as Pan sapiens.

Evidence suggests that, somewhere between 4 and 8 million years ago, gorillas, and then chimpanzees, split off from the common ancestors of humanity. Since modern humans are the only survivors of the human line, chimps of both types are our closest living relatives. We are not direct descendents of the modern chimps, however. Some DNA evidence suggests the Bonobo and Common Chimpanzee species separated from one another less than one million years ago. Hominines, a subfamily of Hominidae including gorillas, chimpanzees, Homo sapiens as well as some extinct relatives, seem to have been one of the groups that adapted to the open grasslands when they appeared about 8 million years ago. Their fossils are relatively well known.

Australopithecus afarensis was an extinct hominid. It lived between 4 and 3 million years ago. It’s believed by many that A. afarensis was an ancestor of the modern humans. Australopithecus afarensis fossils have only been found in East Africa. Compared to modern and extinct great apes, A. afarensis had smaller canines and molars, though they are still larger than modern humans’. They did, however, exhibit a large degree of sexual dimorphism in body size, suggesting that competition between males was still high, though decreasing. A. afarensis had a small brain and a protruding face. There are also traits of A. afarensis skeletons that strongly suggest bipedalism in their hip structure and in their loss of the ability to grip objects with their feet. There are no stone tools associated with A. afarensis so it probably didn’t eat large amounts of flesh.

Australopithecus africanus was another australopithecine that developed later, around two to three million years ago. Like its older relative it had similar features and was thought to be an ancestor of modern humans. It was more human-like, because of its brain size and facial features. It showed evidence of bipedalism. Though it was like humans in some ways, it retained its hand functions for use in the trees.

No stone tools have ever been associated with australopithecines. The brains of the australopithecines are measured to be about the same as a chimpanzee’s.

Another member of the subfamily Homininae, Paranthropus robustus, is generally dated to have lived between 2 and 1.2 million years ago.

Though there are many possibilities for ancestors of modern humans, there are also just as many, if not more, possibilities for cousins whom we are not as directly related, and who may compose separate species altogether.

Australopithecus garhi is thought to be the missing link between the other australopithecines and Homo habilis, a member of our own genus. It is also suggested to be the earliest user of stone tools.

The use of stone tools may introduce a founding dilemma for future humans’ (our) consent in their society, as the australopithecines developed from a flight species, and not a fight species, and so probably didn’t have a genetic regulator to stop the use of violence on a member of one’s own species. Since there were no tools before these animals, violence may not have needed as much genetic regulation because fights did not end in as many casualties. Animals that have weapons built into them generally tend to have “stop mechanisms”, such as when a wolf will bear its belly or throat to the alpha. In such a scenario, the alpha could very well end the lower ordered wolf at that moment by attacking vital organs, but the sign of submission acts as communication not to do so. This is a genetically inherited trait that the early humans had little use for before the advent of tools, and so natural regulators of violence were lacking, due to their self-imposed technologies, resulting in intraspecific carelessness and violence.

Homo habilis lived about one to two million years ago in South and East Africa when it split from the Australopithecines, and could be one of our true ancestors. They had smaller molars and larger brains than the Australopithecines, and made tools from stone.

Some lesser known studies include Homo rudolfensis, which refers only to an incomplete skull from Kenya, and Homo georgicus, from Georgia, which may be a transitioning phase from Homo habilis to Homo erectus.

In Africa, Asia, and Europe Homo habilis evolved larger brains and made more intricate tools. It was the first ancestor of modern humans to walk completely upright. This was made possible by the evolution of locking knees and a different location of the foramen magnum (hole in the skull where the spine enters). They may have used fire to cook. This was enough evidence for scientists to classify them as a separate species, Homo erectus. Homo erectus probably lived between 1 million and 70,000 years ago.

Homo cepranesis and Homo antecessor are suggestions for species that may be transitions between Homo erectus and heidelbergensis, but there is not much fossil record of them at all, so the question remains complicated. Both cepranesis and heidelbergensis may be around 800,000 years old. Homo rhodesiensis, a later development, may be classified the same as heidelbergensis or a transition from it.

Homo neanderthalensis is the most commonly referenced pre-sapiens human. It lived from 250,000 to as recent as 30,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, there is an ongoing debate as to whether Neanderthal was a separate species, but most scientists classify them in separate categories.

This brings us to the current state of the human condition; Homo sapiens. Sapiens means “wise” or “intelligent.” The oldest fossil records of the Homo sapiens are from about 250,000 years ago. Between 400,000-250,000 years ago our brain and technologies developed at a quicker rate.

Current research suggests that humans are highly genetically homogenous, much more alike than other species. Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, largely because of small groups of people changing locations. This isolation gave way to racial characteristics such as skin color and nose form. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapien genome.

The oldest known anatomically modern human is Homo sapiens idaltu, from Ethiopia. It lived about 160,000 years ago.

There is evidence to support a divergence from modern humans in the species Homo floresiensis, which lived around 100,000 to 12,000 years ago. It has been nicknamed “hobbit” for its interestingly small size and age. This suggests that floresiensis share a common ancestor with modern humans, but split from the modern human lineage and followed a distinct path. There is an ongoing debate of whether or not floresiensis is actually a separate species. Some scientists believe that floresiensis was modern sapiens suffering from dwarfism. This may be true because the island of Flores, where it was found, is home to modern pygmies.

Anthropologists characterize the Great Leap Forward, about 50,000 years ago, as a change in modern development. Humans started burying their dead. They made clothing, painted, and developed hunting strategies. Human cultures developed, as evidenced by novelty technologies. Artifacts such as fish hooks, buttons, and bone needles begin to show signs of variation among populations which were not seen prior to 50,000 years ago.

Culture is an important part of human societies. Culture can be defined as the use of symbols—written and unwritten language. Without these tools we would have never been able to develop the resources we have today.

CIVILIZATION

The Stone Age was characterized by humans using stone, bone, and wood for their tools and continually moving around in a nomadic lifestyle. The early Stone Age is called the Paleolithic Age. During this age lived the Neanderthal, and later the Cro-Magnon people. Many of the people in this time were cave dwellers, but there are also some signs of temporary shelters that may have been used while traveling. Art developed in this period; the Cro-Magnon people painted on walls in caves.

Around 10,000 to 7,000 B.C.E. is considered the Mesolithic Period. The climate dramatically shifted and it became much warmer. All of the modern races of humans were present during this time. Wood crafting became much more common and tools were of better quality. In modern day Palestine, signs of huts outside of caves around Mount Carmel began to appear. Grains were harvested on a large scale and there are signs they were probably planted intentionally at times.

This developed into the Neolithic Revolution, which was a period when humans finally learned to settle down. They began to take great care of their tools and they tamed animals, including goats, sheep, pigs, and cattle. They started to weave garments together and made pottery and baskets. People started to build homes more regularly and started living in larger groups, sometimes up to a thousand at a time.

Subsistence technology— that technology that is the main source of food production— is the most influential factor in the development of societies. The arrival of new forms of subsistence technology can mean different things, but generally with each rise in subsistence technology surplus levels go up. Class stratification also becomes more extreme as technology goes up. Information also increases, allowing even greater steps.

“…[A]dvances in subsistence technology are a necessary precondition for any significant increase in either the size or the complexity of any society,” say sociologists, Patrick Nolan and Gerhard Lenski, “In short, technology defines what is possible for a society.” They go on to point out that it influences choices due to changing costs, and influences other kinds of technology, as well as extends human senses, among other things.

Horticultural societies, those that grow food for their subsistence, arose in the Neolithic. These societies did not use plows like later agricultural ones. Aside from fishing societies, horticultural ones were the first transition from strict hunting and gathering to newer modes of subsistence.

Some point out an interesting difference and change in societies at the point of horticulture. Before the intentional growing of food it was simply hunted and gathered. This then distinguishes a big change in mode of subsistence; hunter-gatherer groups are examples of immediate return societies, which are those societies that can not create a surplus, and which benefit only directly after their labor, while delayed return societies create surplus. An example would be that instead of growing and drying grains for storage and use in the more distant future, as in a delayed return society, someone from an immediate return society would simply go out and pick or hunt the food that was needed for use in the very near future.

The Chalcolithic Period was characterized by the use of copper, though it by no means made stone and wood obsolete. Wheels were invented for carts pulled by animals. Population grew intensely and temples started to appear in settlements. Oftentimes these temples were used for storage of grains, which were paid as wages to farmers and public officials among other things. Though horticultural societies were more prone to hierarchy than hunting and gathering ones, due to the ability to control more surplus, leaders didn’t have much power to coerce, but had to more ability to manipulate or convince their people. When all members of a society can make similar weapons to those used against them no one can hold a monopoly on force.

Leaders were almost always ‘mandated by God’, or gods and/or goddesses, according to their culture. Patrick Nolan and Gerhard Lenski point out that “the power of political leaders has been quite limited in nearly all simple horticultural societies.” They also point out that “[t]he growth in social inequality is closely linked with the growth of government.”

Humans had been practicing horticulture prior to moving out of Africa but when they hit the Egyptian Nile River, and especially when they hit Sumer in Southern Mesopotamias’ Tigris-Euphrates River region (known as the Fertile Crescent) they found the Cradle of Civilization and the practice of growing food changed forever. It was much easier in this part of the world, as it was here that the soil was much more fertile. The Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates Rivers allowed plenty of water for crop irrigation. The water was not the only positive thing going for these people, however, as the area was also a hot spot for biodiversity due to its location between the continents of Africa and Asia as a land bridge.

Alongside benefits related to water, there were many beneficial plants and animals that humans could use for various purposes including food, clothing, shelter, and most importantly, labor. This animal labor allowed the plowing of fields which in turn allowed the farmer to have more production or leisure. The plowing of fields marks the advent of agriculture, and largely defines it from horticulture. From this leisure, newer technology arose. It was mutually perpetuating, as technology increased leisure as well. Specialization in tasks became much more abundant and a large economy of barter and commodity currencies had been developed. Before this, exchanges were made on a loose basis, relying on relational exchanges such as friends and family to depend on reciprocation, but exchanges outside of close relations soon developed spot transactions, or trade. Barter allowed societies to grow at an even larger rate by creating more surplus. Wherever there was hierarchy, however, surplus always found its home there.

Larger political systems seem to have emerged in Mesopotamia and Egypt when large economies with surplus first became possible, some time around 3,000 BCE. People needed a way to communicate with one another, and to establish contracts of law, so they formed assemblies. Some of these assemblies formed what is now seen as the first city-states, though the true distinction relies on the monopoly on the use of force being held by an individual or group and the maintenance of a class system, which is not necessarily true of all of these early societies— especially those who made decisions as a group. More properly, the earliest forms of political organization were temples, of which membership was voluntary. Michael Cheilik, once associate professor of history at Lehman College says,

“According to many scholars, at first there was very little class distinction among the citizens. To be sure, there was a variety of economic functions among the inhabitants, but there is little indication of aristocracy or monarchy before 2800 B.C. It seems to some scholars that all citizens met in an assembly to select a leader. Slavery began at a very early period, as it occurred to conquerors that killing one’s adversaries was wasteful. Why not take them alive and use their labor? But the number of slaves was quite small.”

He goes on to say,

“The early, undifferentiated citizen body was soon put under a highly centralized form of government… Toward the middle of the third millennium, the conditions of peace and war required firm leadership. The cities were often at war with one another, and there was a continuous threat of invasions. Thus kingship arose in the major Sumerian cities… Kingship probably originated as a temporary expedient at times of emergency, with the king elected by the assembly. But by 2700 B.C. it had become a hereditary institution.”

According to some hypotheses, a patriarchal herding society known as the Kurgans may be responsible for the origins of the state and of dominator society. They were under ecological pressures to abandon pastoral labor in favor of the military domination of their enemies. They attacked in three waves of expansion, using chariots. The victorious Kurgans formed themselves as a small governing caste over a number of other societies.

At least a few authors see the origins of dominator culture as a possible source of neuroses in the past and today. Dominator cultures like the Kurgans are those that are “violent, authoritarian, world-hating, misogynist, [and] child abusing” according to Larry Gambone. Any culture that works on domination of its members and/or others is seen as a dominator culture. This is contrasted with partnership culture where power is shared between men and women, there is a lack of authority in administration, decisions are made as a group, and there generally exists a peaceful and friendly culture.

The growth of economy meant technology had come to allow enough leisure to talk about problems and sort them out before they happen. This allowed for the creation of contract and law. The Ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, for example, is one of the earliest systems of law we know of. It seems that when groups that establish benefits for themselves don’t extend those rights to others (and break the law of equal liberty) that we see the arrival of the state and enslavement of people and societies by others. The Code of Hammurabi is likely not the first actual code of law, but was probably based on similar, but more traditionally communicated, systems at the time. It may be one of the first systems of law to be put into symbols.

Because there was no uniting force between the civilizations, and space in the Fertile Crescent was growing continually smaller, violence grew. As populations rose and wild food and crops fluctuated in output they would be at constant conflict with one another. Societies, without forming social contracts between them, had a lack of monopoly on the use of force, horizontal or hierarchical, and so this gave rise to war. War gave rise to a king who, at first, was likely a chieftain elected by his assembly and was not the sole maker of law, but acted as a judge and leader in times of conflict. It’s possible that kingship started as a temporary position during a time of war, and continued when a society would dominate another, as dominator societies are continually at war, at home and abroad, because they have to keep their conquered neighbors under control.

The position of king, early on, came with a large possible cost to the individual because, at this time, a king had not established power through coercion, but was elected by the group to carry out its mutually agreed upon laws and military actions. Judging and dishing out punishment was not a very agreeable task, as it breaks social relationships. War was dangerous. Those were some detractors from the job. Responsibility for leading military operations (at this time, the king was at the front of the battle) probably gave rise to a need for large amounts of compensation to the king, in order to ensure his services despite the costs of his dealings in conflict. He was always at conflict— at home as a judge and abroad as a military leader. Many kings have been murdered throughout history. These early civilizations, drunk on newly found surplus in the Cradle of Civilization, were likely to find much more utility for protection and would pay tribute to their kings for their services.

Eventually rogue kings and other members of societies with the privileges of the Fertile Crescent gained enough wealth, and thus bargaining power, that they could persuade others to fight battles for their benefit. Particularly wealthy societies would dominate less fortunate groups, and once they were integrated into the dominating society they would be maintained through class relationships. At this point in time relationships were still largely familial, and the hierarchies reflected this. Usually a class within a certain society also meant a particular genetic lineage as well.

In Egypt, the kings took a position of divine rule and, upon death, claimed they would become gods themselves. In Mesopotamia the king never reached a standard of divinity in the same way as in Egypt, however. Political leadership, nonetheless, was still based in theology.

The remnants of sexual dimorphism in humans seem to have played a bit of a role in the establishment of kings when dominator societies began. Most monarchs in history have been male, not because they are objectively better or worse, but because of the past culture of patriarchy that had developed from the conditions the species had experienced as uncivilized man previously, dealing with division of labor in rigid gender separation. This led to an understanding of male as protector and hunter, and of female as a home-maker and moral decision-maker. This is not true of all primitive civilizations, but it does seem to be the trend in the early Cradle of Civilization. This is also a lifestyle that is reflected in the !Kung of the African Kalahari desert, a small group of indigenous people often cited as an example of primitive hunter-gatherer society, though men are not as responsible for war as they were in early civilization. !Kung men make many of the tools and hunt, while the women bring most of the food home from foraging, as well as take care of the children and craft.

Oftentimes men in primitive living conditions find their way to political leadership and women will be spiritual and moral leaders. This, of course, is not always true, as is shown in theocracies and by the presence of matriarchal societies throughout time.

It seems that the earliest forms of political assembly were based upon philosophy and religion. Religion was almost as good as the science of the time and people explained various forms of natural phenomena, when they didn’t know the technical answer, with answers that made them feel the most comfortable in their surroundings. In some cultures this included concepts of divine personalities, such as goddesses and gods. Most cultures of this time and before seem to show some form of paganism, animism, or pantheism.

After the establishment of war, kings become more prominent and slaves begin to be taken from other societies in stronger numbers. Relative surplus, from one community to the next, allowed larger growth and eventually kingdoms dominated one another to establish larger areas of control.

These first civilizations had an advantage in geography and they dominated other communities. They brought with them diseases that their cultures had adapted to in the Fertile Crescent and which then spread to the cultures with which they were competing. Two reasons this happened was because of the rise of agriculture and of written language. Agriculture was a main cause because it allowed people, who did not have to spend most of their time providing for their own subsistence, to develop, and writing because it made possible the centralization of vital information.

Civilizations soon developed outside of the Cradle and influenced people in all directions, with other large societies forming all across Europe and Asia. Large settlements developed all along the Mediterranean. Strong civilizations developed such as the Hittites, Persians, Hebrews, Assyrians, Phoenicians— all worthy of their own descriptions— and finally the Greeks.

Organized civilizations developed all over the world in Continental Asia, Japan, and in the Americas (Australian aborigines and smaller island groups seem to have been the last to develop civilization, likely because they were more isolated from its development). Ancient China and India have some of the richest human histories and philosophies on Earth. Though all of these civilizations are important, because they have unique understandings of the world from which we can all learn, I will not be going into detail with them as much as with the European and American civilizations, simply because I am trying to follow the context of evolution of our current nation-state in North America, which largely has its history in European political and economic forces.

In Europe, the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations were the main military powers at one point in time.

Greece was a culture made of various polities and city-states. At the fall of the Mycanean civilization the people lost its writing, but adopted a modified Phoenician style as their own.
The Greeks started out as small self-governing agrarian and, later, maritime societies.

Gold and silver coins were developed in the kingdom of Lydia and were stamped by the king. The idea was soon passed on to other cultures such as the Greeks and the Romans. It was considered a political act to mint coins and it was usually forbidden by law. If it wasn't forbidden it was heavily regulated and only certain kinds could be produced locally (meaning it was forbidden on certain scales). The most probable reason for the creation of these coins is so that the king or emperor could easier keep track of his money and ensure that all payments and taxes were measured correctly with the same scale— his own. In theory, and in practice before his monopoly on power (when he was still subject to rule of the assembly), it was his military protection they were paying for. To the king at this time, however, it was his reward. After all, he had been born into power, perhaps even given control by god according to some beliefs, or he had overcome a military hurdle and now found it his duty to keep his place, and to protect the society he is benefiting from. Such a task is not cheap. The rulers wanted to be sure that all of the money bore their stamps of approval because it was ultimately their money regardless of whose hands it was in at the moment. The coins would all return to them in the form of taxes, and they wanted to be sure to get every ounce of their precious metals back.

In the authoritarian agricultural societies, all societal surplus was given to the ruling classes. Common people were only allowed to keep what they needed to stay alive and produce surplus for the rich. This was done by all products being forcefully taken by the government and then rationed to the people afterwards, or by charging taxes equal to the surplus available.

When coins were released, however, it created a strong merchant class that worried the aristocracy of being replaced by popular assemblies or mercantile republics. Before minting coins, and effectively putting into place a monopoly on the means of exchange, the lower classes had been more equal as products were their own means of exchange. The gold and silver basis ensured that only those who had market transactions with royalty got the legally accepted means of exchange. Most common exchanges within the lower classes at this time were still done by bartering. Payment existed between members of the upper class, and especially from the upper class to the lower class. Taxes, on the other hand, went exactly the other way around, with the poor giving their earnings right back to the ruling class, and unable to keep a surplus for themselves.

In Athens, Greece, a popular uprising established the most cited origin of democracy (though I would like to disagree because of the evidence toward the formation of public assemblies in previous cities of the Fertile Crescent). The Athenian democracy was very direct, but it was characterized by one large problem: class stratification. One could not vote if one was not a land-owning male. Sparta, as well as other polities, also had many elements of democracy. Greece would continue to influence the world after its existence. Particularly known for its technology and its philosophy, it would remain an inspiration to all of the societies that it anticipated in its area and beyond.

The Roman Kingdom was overthrown and the Roman Republic was established for a few centuries before it ended. The Republic was controlled by magistrates, committees, and councils. Though kingdoms were more prevalent, republics and democracies were not uncommon at this time. City-states all had their own ways of functioning and some of them wanted power to be more distributed. The Roman Republic would eventually find themselves victorious over the Greeks.

After the triumph of the Roman Republic there were civil wars that weakened the nation for centuries. Julius Caesar was appointed as dictator. This sparked the Roman Empire, which first went through a time called the principate period; derived from the Latin word princeps, which means first or chief. The principate emperors' assertions were that they were just "first among equals" of all Roman citizens. It was marked by its formal attempts by the emperors to create the illusion of the continuance of the Republic, which, although hierarchical, was still much more participatory and thus less controlling. Principate emperors were influenced by the Enlightenment and had more tolerant views on religion and allowed private property.

Following the principate came the dominate period. Dominate is derived from the Latin dominus, meaning lord or master, as an owner versus his slave. Alongside the emperor served the senate, the remains of the Republic, but the emperors were now more or less in full control of the situation. The Roman Empire was largely influential to history due to its reach of power. The Roman Imperial Cult claimed emperors and some royalty to be divinely sanctioned authorities of the Roman State. The Imperial Cult was formulated during the early principate and was established throughout the Empire with marked local variations in its expression.

The Hebrew religion of Judaism had continued to grow throughout the Roman Empire. A hybrid form of this monotheism, and polytheistic religions, brought about the existence of a new dominate religion. The most likely cause of this was the legend of a revolutionary Hebrew figure, Jesus of Nazareth, who was concerned about usury, inhumanity, and human-conceived “objective” truths espoused by authority. He seems to have taken a stance against classism and violence. He taught his people that they had a relationship with God that was more important than their relationships to their ruler, and that God wanted them to be free and to love one another. Thus, he was a plague to the Jewish priesthood, whose loyalty had become co-opted by the Roman Empire, and they ultimately had him killed.

Stories of his life traveled across the Empire and a new religion was formed around these depictions; Christianity. Many of these depictions were exaggerations, pieces of art, as writing in this time was a specialized task, upheld with great esteem by the artisan involved. As such, these people wanted their work read. Stories from earlier religions started seeping in, regarding the virgin birth, resurrection, and more pagan myths. Many of these stories were based on the astronomy and astrology of the period. For instance, Jesus of Nazareth, if he really did exist at all and is not just an amalgamation of pagan and monotheistic tales, was now a reflection of various Sun-centered religions, and his birth and his death told the story of the seasons. Many Christians and Jews were persecuted and Christianity was regarded as a revolutionary metaphysical and social movement during the time, refusing to bow to anyone and only succumbing to the authority of God, who they felt taught them to be kind and giving with one another.

The Catholic Church, as it was first regarded, was the coming together of all of the Christian denominations, and it was seen as a universal Christianity. As it grew, it became more powerful and, instead of trying to fight it, Emperor Constantine converted and made Christianity legal. It was later adopted as the official religion of the Empire by Theodosius, in order to co-opt it and subdue the populations of the Empire.

The Empire was losing its strength. It had been under internal and external pressures from the Germanic people, Celts, and Huns. It had also been split between the East and the West.

Rome was eventually taken by the Visigoths and the new East Roman capital was moved to Constantinople. At this point we shall refer to the East Roman Empire as the Byzantine Empire. This was the beginning of the Middle or Dark Ages.

The Byzantine Empire fluctuated in size. Eventually it gained control of most of its territories again, including Italy, but then lost Rome and would eventually diminish almost to entirety as new kingdoms arose from the Visigoth, Ostrogoth, Frank, Vandal, Saxon, Celt, and Norse cultures. This induced the decline of the Roman Empire into the Byzantine control of the now obsolete Fertile Crescent, and the North East Mediterranean, where they were continually attacked by Huns, Persians, and Arabs.

By this time the Franks had established themselves quite well west of the Byzantine Empire. They had become a full force in Europe, and their empire was called the Carolingian. It encompassed modern day Germany, France, Italy, and more.

Feudalism was on the rise, with a system of lords granting fiefs of land to vassals, or nobles. The lords controlled the land, and in exchange for military service and tribute, rented it to the vassals. The rented land was called a fief. On the fief lived the serf, or the peasant, who was tied to the land. This was a system that existed before the establishment of the Carolingian Empire, but around the same time Viking raids were widely undertaken in Europe (700-1000), it became common practice. Feudalism had actually arisen as the Roman Empire met its demise. As pressures developed to break the Empire apart the rulers would decentralize certain degrees of power through contract, but in this way could hold on to more of their Empire at large. This began the system of fiefdom that had been passed down to the Carolingians.
Democracy was still not uncommon at this time, especially with the Germanic, Celtic, and Norse peoples. Things, assemblies of all free citizens in an area, had become common practice. Things were presided over by elected Lawspeakers, who were chosen to remember, arrange, and recite the laws the people had chosen. Large assemblies were carried out by federated things. They’d have complicated arrangements and dates for their various levels, from local all the way to the national.

Small republics were also still in existence during this time period, especially in former Byzantine areas. Most often they were characterized by strong merchant classes who had banded together for mutual protection from enemies.

A ruler named Pepin reigned as an elected king. Although such elections happened infrequently, a general rule in Germanic law stated that the king relied on the support of his leading men. These men reserved the right to choose a new "kingworthy" leader out of the ruling clan if they felt that the old one could not lead them in victorious battle. In later France, the kingdom became hereditary. The kings of the even later Holy Roman Empire proved unable to abolish the elective tradition and kings continued as elected rulers until the empire's formal end in 1806.

In parts of Europe, communes started to arise, as peasants and merchants decided to live together in walled cities for protection from rogue nobles and bandits, and to have more autonomy. Some of these cities seceded and became states or sovereign communities in themselves, governed on a basis of some form of democracy. Some remained under control of their previous political leadership, paying homage to a ruler.

The Carolingian Empire had been divided into entirely different nations. France had become its own kingdom and Germany, at this time called the Holy Roman Empire, had gained sovereignty as well. Italy had been broken up into various Papal States and other small nations. Mercantile classes in (modern) Italy kept it rather maritime and peaceful, accounting for much of its democratic and republican influence. War was still very common in Europe, nonetheless.

The Crusades were a series of religious campaigns that lasted 200 years. Originally the wars were started to recapture the city of Jerusalem from Muslim control and were driven by the Franks and the Holy Roman Empire. Campaigns were not exclusive to attacks on Muslims; many pagan, non-Catholic Christians, Jews, and other societies were also attacked by the Catholic invaders.

Not long after, the Mongol Empire developed, headed by Genghis Khan, for one of the shortest but largest empires in history, taking almost all of Asia as its own. Marco Polo, a merchant from the Republic of Venice, wrote of his travels during the reign of the Mongol Empire. He and his family had made of themselves great assets, and were not allowed to leave China for a number of years because they were so valued to Kublai Khan, Genghis’s grandson. Though others had passed through Asia, Marco was the first to be widely known for his writing during the time, which developed great interest in trade from Southeastern Asia. The Empire was broken apart a few generations after the death of Genghis.

The Byzantine Empire had ended and the Ottoman Empire was on the rise. Many of today’s European nations start to appear by name or territorial boundaries. Decentralization was on the rise with the Ottomans, not only in economic feudalism, but also with religion and culture. Millets; confessional (or intentional religious) communities; were a crucial part of the Ottoman Empire. This allowed less tension between the plurality of religious tendencies, while still placing them all under the central authority of the Sultan.

Throughout Europe in the 13th and 14th centuries, a lower class Christian movement known as the Brethren of the Free Spirit arose. This kind of Gnostic Christian movement stressed the inherent worth of all people, stressing that God was in the soul of all people, that the church and state were corrupt tools of man to control their inner-God, and that grassroots change was needed. They were radical in nature, viewing themselves as integral parts of reality not to be ashamed of their nudity, desires for sex, drunkenness, foul language, and theft. Needless to say, many actions were taken against the Free Spirit, including extermination. They would not be forgotten, however, and their influence was so strong it may have ultimately led Martin Luther to take his revolutionary stance of Protestantism. They also went on to have more direct influence as the Taborites in Czechoslovakia who defeated local rulers and established more egalitarian communities that regarded all rulers as enemies.

The Hundred Years War (1337-1453) was a series of separate wars that occurred between two royal houses for the French throne, with one claiming to be the rightful sovereign of France, and the other claiming to be the legitimate ruler of both France and England. In these wars the famed Joan of Arc arose, a peasant woman who convinced the authorities to let her lead an army, largely out of spiritual conviction and confidence. She did so to victory against bad odds at times before she died at the age of 19, when she was burned at the stake by the English, for being a witch.

This was also the time that the Black Death had spread throughout Europe. It is though to have been a form of bubonic plague due to the fleas that rats and some humans, were bringing into the towns. It may have been responsible for the death of up to 60% of Europeans at the time. This probably caused what is called the modern “middle class”, according to some historians, because of the amount of material surplus left by the dead. The middle class would be characterized by the ownership of one’s own means, such as owning one’s own home or products. Before, this was a small class of artisans and merchants, but after the Black Death this class grew exponentially.

Toward the end of the 15th century a man by the name of Christopher Columbus, greatly inspired by Marco Polo’s journeys, had been subsidized by Spain to explore the possibility of a round Earth that allowed them to reach the Indies. He is oftentimes credited with the concept itself, but this is not so. After he set sail he unknowingly reached the Americas and mistook it for East Asian culture. Columbus would become famous for his journey, and would be given positions in government, although he would turn out to be a cruel and vicious ruler of the inhabitants of the newly conquered territory, enslaving and torturing many of them. Columbus’s journey would spark great interest in the newly discovered (by non-Norse Europeans) continents. This would end the period of the middle ages.

The early modern era was characterized by a rise in the nation-state, a reawakening to the importance of science, and the rise of capitalism throughout Europe, starting in the Republics of Italy, with a focus on the theories of mercantilism. Feudalism and serfdom would eventually meet their demise. The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment would begin to make their impacts in culture, politics, and science in this period. Cultures within early modern European societies were flourishing from the new innovations occurring in all spheres of life. With feudalism disappearing more people had the ability to make an impact in their surroundings, and great developments were made. Slave trading and naval conquests of imperialism, however, were also on the rise. This was largely due to the great interest in exploration that had continued throughout the period, especially by the Portuguese, that had inspired explorers to share their experiences with others through the use of cartography and written word. They had set up the first colonies in the Americas as well. Naval mathematic development and appropriation allowed explorers to travel greater distances. This demanded new developments in naval technology which occurred rapidly. Though seafaring was important to trade and warfare long before, it was growing at an exponential rate and this allowed much more cargo and personnel to travel greater distances at much greater speeds.

Around this time a trade route was established to India, and though the Indies were considered great trade areas even to the ancient Romans and Greeks, travel by water allowed much more efficiency. European colonies started to form in these trade areas.

The Americas were also explored at this time, especially by Spain, and later by the Portuguese, French, and English, as well as some Russian and Dutch territories. The Europeans were very cruel in their interactions with the indigenous peoples. The great nations that had been formed by the people were eventually destroyed by illness brought to them from Europe, though Europeans also suffered from American illness, as well as by being manipulated against one another and not being able to compete against the technology of steel and horses used by the Europeans. This is not to disregard the fact that the Europeans were also cruel to one another. Over half of the European colonists at this time were indentured servants.

Back in England, competitions between nations were not the only issues at hand for the rulers. Groups such as the Ranters and the True Levellers, commonly referred to as “The Diggers”, started to arise, demanding respect for all humans, regardless of their class. This Caused problems for the elite in their own lands. These radical movements were inspired by the earlier Free Spirit, and like those radicals before them, saw land as something that should be held in common. The Ranters were known for their partying and immorality. They found no sense in fighting sexual urges, cursing, or stealing from the rich. They were often brutally punished just for speaking about their ideas. The diggers, on the other hand, took to great amounts of action and, though they were small in number, they inspired a great deal of peasant resistance for their size. They focused their beliefs strongly on a position against property, believing that all labor products should be shared in common, and that all work should be done cooperatively without need for a landlord. They started to lay claim on the desolate fields of England, desiring to take the wastelands and make them fertile for all that were willing to live communally. Needless to say, these communities were destroyed by the local officials and their cottages and fields were burned to the ground.

Back in North America settlers were creating colonies based on their religious convictions. In Rhode Island, at that time Rogues Island, settlements were founded on different principles than most of the other colonies. Firstly, they held public meetings in place of government, discussing important matters that affect the community at large. Most of the other colonialists dominated the indigenous people and stole their lands, but those of Rogues Island purchased it from them. Well-intentioned as it was, the perpetual holding of private property eventually led to a feudal-style system, where someone could no longer homestead because all of the land was purchased, so they were forced to purchase the land from an existing owner, or to rent it from them.

Rebel Christians such as Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams started to influence others in their fight for religious freedom. Anne Hutchinson asks the question; if guidance comes from within, and there must be religious freedom because of it, what right does government have to rule over the individual at all? Roger Williams eventually lost his libertarian viewpoints, however.

There were all kinds of religious freedom interests in the colonies at this time, including the Anglicans, Calvinists, Puritans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Huguenots, Lutherans, Mennonites, Amish, Moravians, and Jews. Let’s not forget the Quakers, they didn’t just sow oats. More properly, they are known as the Religious Society of Friends, or Friends for short.

Quakerism is a very subjective belief in Christianity that claims that God is able to be experienced by everyone (remember the Free Spirit?). Quakers have taken a strong stance against violence and, in its place, promote communication. This is true even in their congregations and, because all members are seen as being able to hear God, members are encouraged to speak ‘if the spirit moves them.’ Quaker assemblies are very democratic in nature, as they rely on consensus-based decision-making procedures, wherein one member can block a motion from being passed. They were also radical for refusing to bow or show such signs of respect for social superiors, feeling that all are equal in the eyes of God.

The Quakers were one of the first religious groups to cross into the New World. Many Europeans at this time were fleeing religious persecution, and the English and Dutch colonies, in specific, were ripe with religious diversity. One particular Quaker, William Penn, was given a position as the absolute proprietor of what was to become Pennsylvania.

At this time in Pennsylvania there were no taxes, largely to encourage settlement, but also because the Quakers would have it that way instead. William Penn eventually did, as a feudal-style landlord, desire to retrieve money from the settlers, but he was met with much resistance. He eventually went back to England and power was given to an infrequently meeting council, essentially making Pennsylvania a stateless territory. The Quakers were very pleased with this situation for almost five years. Penn was very unhappy, however, and he asked an old Puritan soldier named John Blackwell to be governor. Blackwell was frustrated by his attempts to tax the settlers and was convinced they were defiant of every authority. Eventually King William of England had become tired of the pacifist and anarchistic nature of the Quakers. He wanted to use the Quakers’ resources to attack the French, but the Quakers were not paying taxes and refused to fight in wars. He removed Penn from the territory and named a new Governor.

The King passed a bill to collect taxation in Pennsylvania, but they could not collect from the Quakers. Penn was reestablished. The council refused to accept a tax bill, but their governor finally established taxes amongst the Quakers.

Much political thought was happening around this time. Individuals such as Adam Smith, the philosopher of laissez-faire economics, and Thomas Paine stand out as important thinkers. Paine had been a strong proponent of trade, rights, and common sense, the latter of which he used for the title of his book, which was to be passed around throughout the revolutionary colonies, but did not bare his name.

The French and Indian Wars happened in the mid 1700’s and eventually ended in some French colonies being integrated together into British control. The Seven Years’ War soon followed and afterward the British government imposed a tax for military support. The colonists did not like the idea. With France and the indigenous federations being defeated, Britain was the only outside influence to be concerned about.

When the colonies developed a desire for tea the rulers feared economic competition and established a law declaring that all imports of tea into the colonies must come from Great Britain. The East India Tea Company (first-ever corporation) was given a monopoly by the Parliament, in England, in exchange for a high tax rate, but they did not export to the colonies. It was against the law. Instead, the rulers demanded that the tea was to be sold at auction and British companies exported it to America.

Some of the colonists went on to argue that taxation without representation was against the British constitution and, since the colonists didn’t elect the parliament, they should not be subject to its taxes. Taxes were levied, but were met with protests, boycotts, and alternatives. Taxes continued to be an issue for the colonists. As new tax burdens raised the price of tea rose with it and sales for the East India Tea Co. started to diminish.

American colonists were tired of being tied down to the British rule. They feared that taxation would spread to other imported goods. One night in December, after much organized protesting of the taxes, a small band boarded ships in Boston Harbor and tossed all of the taxed tea into the ocean.

The British responded with the Coercive Acts, which infuriated the colonists, who called for The First Continental Congress. This congress called for boycotts of British goods and petitions. It also called for further meetings if the Coercive Acts weren’t repealed. They were not, and so The Second Continental Congress was put into session to organize resistance.

The colonies actively rebelled and in 1776 they declared themselves independent of British rule, as the United States of America, in the Declaration of Independence.

The States were first governed according to their Articles of Confederation. This model was based on a democracy, with decisions being made by delegates who were able to be recalled at the will of their assembly and who relied on unanimous decisions for changes to the Articles. Much like in Athens centuries beforehand, however, it was characterized by class stratification. One could not vote unless one was a land-owning, white, male.

Not only was class unresolved, financial situations were bad. War investors demanded payment in precious metals, but there weren’t enough of these payments to go around. Since the people didn’t have the metals, their personal possessions were taken from them. In one case, Daniel Shays witnessed a sick woman removed from her bed for debt confiscation. There was much distress and reaction from the people, who started to hold meetings and halt property confiscation by force. After some actions taken by the farmers and veterans of the revolution, harsh punishments were dished out. Daniel Shays had become furious, and organized an army of 700 men. As they marched they gained in number, keeping confiscations from happening. They demanded lower taxes and a right to use paper money instead of gold and silver, arguing that their confiscated goods could bring about a better price than that they were being taken in replacement of.

The rich, Samuel Adams and George Washington among them, started to push toward a stronger national government. Sam Adams promoted the Riot Act, which suspended habeas corpus in order to permit authorities to jail people without a proper cause. He argued that a rebellion in a republic should demand execution.

The delegates of the landowning rich were sent to the Philadelphia congress, where a new constitution was developed. In order to persuade those who did not want a federal government with the power to tax and a strong hierarchy, they added to it the Bill of Rights.

After the writing of this illegal constitution, George Washington became the first president. Those who followed his views soon became known as Federalists. Thomas Jefferson and others led an opposition party called the Democratic-Republican Party by most historians today. Political parties in America have their roots here.

Around the same time a tax on alcohol was passed and a rebellion known as the Whisky Rebellion occurred.

Slave revolts were not all that uncommon. In the year of 1800 a slave known as Prosser’s Gabriel was involved in organizing a mass revolt of slaves, but it had to be postponed. Unfortunately, the word had gotten out and the slave masters preemptively took control of the situation, hanging Gabriel and 26 others.

In 1803 the United States purchased the territory of Louisiana from France, which was actually much larger than modern day Louisiana and more than doubled the territory of the American government. In order to investigate the new purchase expeditions such as the famed Lewis and Clark journey were undertaken.

The British had established trade blocks into Europe, continued to hold US prisoners, and were persuading the natives to act against the Americans. This eventually culminated in the War of 1812, and a great loss for many of the native people, as well as for the militaries of both sides.

The Americans were worried about keeping their land, and gaining more of it. They enacted the Monroe Doctrine, forbidding any European expansion in the Americas. In 1830 Congress passed the Indian Removal Act which ended up in the displacement of many of the native people, most notably being responsible for the Trail of Tears.

Alongside movements to treat the native people more fairly, the abolitionist movement was on the rise. Notable characters such as Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass (alongside those who have always looked down on slavery, such as the Quakers) started to make their way into mainstream influence.

Women were also still greatly being treated unfairly, and labor unions started to form to fight for fairer conditions, which in some places were rewarded more than double what was given to them prior to forming the union.

The Republicans used the issue of slavery to give moral legitimacy to their federalism, and as southern states seceded from the federal government, forming their own confederacy, a war broke out between the States now known as the American Civil War.

The American Civil War was long and bloody and in the end the Confederacy was broken and reintroduced into the Union of States. On the negative aspect, centralism had been restored and more power was given to the federal government but, as a positive return, slaves were given their freedom… kind of. Reconstruction was the long process of the government giving the blacks their freedom. In response, white nationalist groups like the Ku Klux Klan started to appear. Their aims were the restoration of white supremacy, and their methods were violent. These groups were eventually put down.*

The Gilded Age, a time of wider economic prosperity, was introduced as monopolies and cartels were broken apart and progressivism was on the rise. Industrial unions formed and began to have stronger strikes against the industrialists. They were eager to form cooperatives as well. The Populists were organized by farmers and workers, demanding a more egalitarian form of democracy, based on public referendum, and a certain degree of civil rights. They were critical of bankers, landlords, and the elite in general, working alongside the labor movement in many cases.

The labor movement (in existence from the time usury and rent first began) was on the rise and organizations such as the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor, and later the Industrial Workers of the World were starting to form in the aftermath of the National Labor Union prior. Stikes, boycotts, and cooperative models of industry were running rampant. The Haymarket Riot marked a strong place in labor history, as anarchists in Chicago were framed for a bombing and were murdered by the government for their political views.
The United States found itself involved in much imperialism in the years to follow, being involved in the Spanish-American Wars and influence in the Philipines, Puerto Rico, and not to mention the building of the Panama Canal. Eventually, however, all of this had to stop as the nation found itself amidst the First World War.

Around this time the women’s suffrage movement started working for women’s right to vote. Women, often aided by supportive men (as in the pages of Lucifer the Light Bearer), worked hard on this issue and it eventually ended in granting their right to do so.

Russia’s October Revolution scared the Americans and this culminated in a Red Scare. In 1920 the prohibition of alcohol was passed as a federal amendment, which promoted much black market activity and the rise of mafia control. The KKK also reformed around then.

The Great Depression hit due to an inflated stock market. Prices on agricultural products and wages for labor dropped immensely, but industrial profits continued to soar. This created a world-wide depression. People were living in shanty-towns and many died from a lack of material assistance. Many new currencies started to appear— being produced by manufacturers, labor unions, and more— but they were put down by the government. Unemployment continued to be a problem until the 1940’s.

Germany, having been affected greatly by the depression had started to build a war economy based on nationalism and Corporatism. This eventually culminated in the Second World War. The Americans had held a trade embargo on the Japanese, who retaliated with the attack at Pearl Harbor. When the Americans went to war they focused largely on the German threat and later retaliated in fuller force against the Japanese, eventually ending the conflict with the use of the atomic bomb.

After the end of World War II there was a long period of tension called the Cold War, where the United States and the Russians were competing for military supremacy through scare tactics but never actually engaged in physical warfare. Much development was made in the area of space-travel and nuclear weapons.

The tension resulted in proxy wars such as in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, which were ultimately fighting the spread of communism.

Civil and women’s rights movements were on the rise. Names such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X start to appear at the forefront of African American struggle. With the growth of these movements and the rise of new wars a counterculture of resistance had been born. Groups of all kinds arose to fight oppression and bring about more democracy. Among these groups included feminists, veteran and AWOL soldiers, civil rights advocates, radical students, and anti-capitalists of all sorts. The Cold War ended and Ronald Reagan took the presidency.

Since the end of the Cold War the US remained as the sole superpower in the world. It continued to involve itself in foreign affairs, such as in the Persian Gulf, which lead to much conflict with Iraq.

On September 11th in 2001 planes were flown into the World Trade Center buildings. The officials blamed a terrorist organization headed by bin Laden, who had been trained by the CIA, and whose family was protected by the government shortly after the event. This ended up in a “War on Terror” declared by the US. The Patriot Act ended in many civil liberties being revoked at the declaration of the government.

Amidst this War on Terror in Afghanistan, and other parts of the Middle East, the US claimed that weapons inspections were continually being denied by Iraq. This led to a second war in the nation. The American government claimed that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction, in order to legitimize the attack. It had all been planned, after all. Peak oil had been discussed decades prior and much of the world’s oil is in the Middle East. Pearl Harbor had been an excuse for the US to get involved in the Second World War, and the leaders knew that an attack on American soil would be just the leverage needed to secure the oil in the Middle East for US corporations. Under all of the emotions of terrorist scares, the rulers of the States were able to convince the people that military intervention in the Middle East was actually a form of self-defense instead of imperialism. This simply was not true.

There were many demonstrations and protests against the wars in the Middle East. There was a rising sentiment of disillusionment with the politics of the time. George W. Bush had become little more than a laughing stock for public opinion. The elite knew that the hopes of getting another Republican elected were little to none.

The Democrats were destined to be the next power and, as such, they took on a tactfully progressive face. The next leader was to either be a woman or a person of color— two groups that have never before been allowed in the position.

SUMMARY

The present is the accumulation of past occurrences. Nothing could exist today in all of its complexity without its own unique history. There is always a reason why. We have now followed this reason why through the course of evolution from the Big Bang all the way to the plight of modern man.

We have seen that God is nature. What God wants is everything that is, but that which is changes (what is can be hard to describe, as existence is a process) as time moves forward. We have seen that, while moving forward in time, the laws of thermodynamics mean that matter and energy are subject to entropy, and the universe wants to expand. Upon expanding, the cooling of the universe and forces such as gravity and electromagnetism allowed for the creation of the molecules, stars, planets, and most of the properties we are familiar with today. Its acts and forces can be attributed to the unconscious (and in the case of animals, conscious) desires of the universe— what it wants. Matter is the body of God (the universe), while kinetic energy, thought, and the fundamental forces that facilitate change are gravity, magnetism, desire, and will— they are part of God’s consent.

We started from the entropy of a singularity, chemically reacted to form proteins, and further developed through natural selection to our current state. We have also followed the development of matter into the higher awareness and consciousness of life, as pain and sight found in the chameleon, and rationality and intuition found in humanity.

Life is important, as it carries with it potential that the nonliving does not, the potential of continuity— fecundity— performed by its desire and self-awareness. From the desire for continuity life has retained itself and spread about the Earth. It has lasted, evolved, and wants to continue doing so. It is becoming more aware of its evolution and more capable of directing its own future, from the mere chance of chemical reactions to social and sexual selection, whereby traits are more consciously chosen for replication. Life also conflicts with itself often, though.

Though collectively categorized as ‘life,’ the conglomerates of this group oftentimes feel themselves belonging more to subjective individual experience than to the experience of all found in objectivity. Life struggles for existence and in so doing must most often take the lives of others in order to continue. All life suffers from this struggle, even the victors eventually fall to the entropy of competition. If life desires to continue, but in order to continue it must kill, and is harmed by this conflict, then it is ultimately life’s mission to put an end to conflict and material necessity, in order that it may continue without interference.

One can’t just jump into idealism, though, unless they do not value their physical existence (unless they have enough faith that this life is not the only one we have), but that is hard to do when all we can consciously experience is causality and the forward evolution of our life. All life suffers from conflict, but gains from evolution; conflict is destined to end, and evolution to continue toward consent.

From evolution, thus far, humanity has found itself very successful in reproduction. Since it’s origins in Africa it has since populated or claimed most of the dry land the Earth has to offer. Much of the early success has been due to our ability to cooperate and support one another through mutual aid and voluntary care. This kind of action protected us from falling prey as often to such things as saber-toothed cats and more. We were very successful in staying alive.

Early on, man saw himself as part of nature and understood the ecosystem well. As agriculture develop the line in the fight between man and nature was becoming very clear, and mankind was a team against nature. Once we spread enough and successfully came to inhabit much of the globe— particularly those areas that gave more opportunities, where nature became less problematic while making the less privileged easier to exploit— the lines were drawn differently; it was no longer humanity against nature, but ‘man against man.’

There is a continual conflict between the physically determined world of causality and body and the idealist free will of finality and mind, or spirit. As our free will develops in consciousness, it must wither away the harsh determinism of the past materialism. Although we continue to evolve in our consciousness, what the future is destined to be composed of, our material desires try to cling on and hold us back to what the universe has been. This is the process of evolution, a constant struggle from the past to reach the future. In the case of our universe as we know it, this is the evolution of the consciousness, mind, free will, and meaning we know today from the lifeless matter, determinism, and meaninglessness of the past. The course of evolution has been followed in the previous pages, it is now time to view the context we are working in today, the present, so that we may see our starting point for the future.

PRESENT

We have seen what God wants, and that is what exists. What exists is a combination of forces that constantly interact with one another, creating change. Part of this change was the development of consciousness— including our own— which has an even higher degree of thought than the inanimate parts of the universe. Animals, vegetables, and minerals are inevitably part of God as well, since they are nature. If they want something, God wants it to the degree that it is put into effect. Their desires all mean as much as they mean relative to one another. Conflicts arise sometimes, and some parts of God’s mind-body have more sway than others, similar to how we have to make decisions about our choices. Sometimes we want something, but dislike it even more. The force of gravity opposed us flying for so long but we learned to have more sway than gravity by using the wind. Opposing forces are a fact of life, and we must learn to live among them and direct their path. Humans have been incredibly capable of this so far, but we also have the potential to fail.

We must see ourselves and our desires as part of what existence (God) wants for the moment, though we must never see ourselves as nature’s entirety— only a portion— because we can definitely cease to remain what is wanted by the whole (God) through such actions as destroying life’s support systems, participating in war, or falling victim to other organisms (for instance). So far, however, humans have been incredibly successful at preserving ourselves and we cover the globe. If we want to continue in our success we have to find a way to settle our conflict with nature and each other. If ecological and economic catastrophe can be stopped in any way we may have the potential to continue for an extended amount of time and even reach beyond the Earth.

If this is so, the human mind is important. When we are talking about what people want we are talking about the most advanced part of the universe that we are aware of— our brains (yep, the most complex part of the universe we know to exist). We will study this mind as part of what we have in the present; from our motives, desires, and actions to entire systems of economy and politics. We will be looking for shortcomings in our species that may keep us from our projected ideals, as well as trends toward potential goals we may share that will allow us to grow closer. This may allow us to determine what the future will look like.

In order to know what people are capable of, to see how humanity has developed, and what kinds of changes we have made for ourselves throughout our existence, we have looked into the past. Now we will look to see the effects of those past occurrences— what exists in the present.

In this section of the material we will be especially focusing on human systems because those are the ones we are most capable of affecting directly. If we are going to be looking to any sort of future, however, we must inevitably look outside of our own system and into the whole. This is important, but will be covered later on. We will now discuss what people want and are capable of accomplishing. We’ll talk about people’s motivations, attitudes, needs, and desires. We’ll discuss freedom and conflict, economics and politics. We’ll talk about the way people interact to get what they want. This will tell us a little bit about the limits of our possibilities; what we want as individuals is limited by what we can accomplish in our social- ecological environment.

PEOPLE

Current existence is the result of the determination of others acting, and taking part in evolution, within the established physical laws of the universe. While interacting within existing laws, one decides the future through choices and actions that manipulate the world in which we live.

People affect one another but can never experience the same reality in its entirety. The fact that we only experience our own consciousness causes conflict.

“A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.” (Albert Einstein)

The problem of solving conflict for the human perspective is that human aspiration for self-preservation and happiness is a natural law of emotional response. As Richard Dawkins points out in his book, The Selfish Gene;

“To a survival machine, another survival machine (which is not its own child or another close relative) is part of its environment, like a rock or a river or a lump of food. It is something that gets in the way, or something that can be exploited. It differs from a rock or a river in one important respect: it is inclined to hit back. This is because it too is a machine that holds its immortal genes in trust for the future, and it too will stop at nothing to preserve them. Natural selection favours genomes that control their survival machines in such a way that they make the best use of their environment. This includes making the best use of other survival machines, both of the same and of different species.”

The mode of self-preservation has largely contributed to the id, which is the part of the human mind responsible for the selfish desires of the individual, making one narcissistic.

Again, Dawkins points out the narcissistic attitudes created by genetics, even in regards to family members;

“Whenever a system of communication evolves, there is always the danger that some will exploit the system for their own ends. Brought up as we have been on the 'good of the species' view of evolution, we naturally think first of liars and deceivers as belonging to different species: predators, prey, parasites, and so on. However, we must expect lies and deceit, and selfish exploitation of communication to arise whenever the interests of the genes of different individuals diverge. This will include individuals of the same species. As we shall see, we must even expect that children will deceive their parents, that husbands will cheat on wives, and that brother will lie to brother.”

Despite the id in interactions humans have found that, at times, giving positive inputs returns positive outputs, even if they're indirect. This can be seen as the altruistic side of human nature, or the super-ego, which focuses on pleasing others and making the individual social. This is largely due to forces of social selection. As my Dawkins sample following will show, it is not plausible for the superego to exist without the id under the conditions of genetic diversity. Conditions of genetic similarity, however, show opposite results, as with kin selection and eusociality, which will be discussed later;

“If only everybody would agree to be a dove, every single individual would benefit. By simple group selection, any group in which all individuals mutually agree to be doves would be far more successful than a rival group sitting at the ESS (Evolutionary Stable Strategy) ratio.... Group selection theory would therefore predict a tendency to evolve towards an all-dove conspiracy... But the trouble with conspiracies, even those that are to everybody's advantage in the long run, is that they are open to abuse. It is true that everybody does better in an all-dove group than he would in an ESS group. But unfortunately, in conspiracies of doves, a single hawk does so extremely well that nothing could stop the evolution of hawks. The conspiracy is therefore bound to be broken by treachery from within. An ESS is stable, not because it is particularly good for the individuals participating in it, but simply because it is immune to treachery from within.”

The ego is the middle ground between the id and the super-ego, regulating the benefits of being social or asocial. It is the human personality, one's awareness. The id and the super-ego are the internal pressures that one's ego uses to gauge reaction to external pressures in order to make decisions that benefit the individual. These are all reflections of natural selection and the need to be flexible in one's environment.

Egos react within natural laws and, as such, they are determined by the laws of the universe. Not to discount it entirely, but the concept of free will is one which is hard to prove. Some liberal traditions are based on the concept as crucial, but it has always seemed to me that determinists have the best concept of reality on our scale of existence because their views do not go against causality in the same way that free will does. So it seems that free will, as going against cause and effect in the four-dimensional world we perceive, in space-time, would have to come from the future, and is a syntropic phenomenon; on a quantum level of existence things are much different. The quantum sphere of reality is chaotic, subject only to probability, and so instead of the causal relationship of entropy it is subject to the retroactive laws of syntropy. Amidst probability and chaos, a particle is ultimately created. On the large scale, things are highly structured and organized, but nonetheless are subject to entropy and will eventually diminish.

Free will does seem to have it’s place on a very small scale, such as in particle physics or even the scale of a genetic mutation which then sets the setting for future structure (although this likely has a cause outside of finality as well). On a larger scale, however, things tend toward cause and effect.

In the human personality, free will takes the form of genetic mutations that cause deviation from the norm, and especially at a young age, which then determine the choices of the future. Because of probability (free will), a person’s choices can never be determined precisely, and the social sciences will never be perfect. We can never expect people to do what is ‘normal,’ because normality is a fluid concept that changes based on the surroundings. If this were not the case, evolution could not occur.

Even if mutations and experiences allow individuals the ability to stray from normalcy, there is something that we know humanity can not currently stray from: the laws of nature. It’s interesting to note in the following example by Baruch Spinoza, a philosopher of pantheistic determinism in the 17th century, how his vision of the mind working parallels Newton’s laws of motion;

“There is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again by another, and so on to infinity. [...] A body in motion or at rest must be determined for motion or rest by some other body, which, likewise, was determined for motion or rest by some other body, and this by a third and so on to infinity.”

What does causality mean for the human concept of liberty? Liberty is the ability to choose without outside pressure, and to express our free will, our differences of genetics or knowledge. Because of mutations and difference of perspectives we are different, and freedom is the expression of difference. David Hume had this to say regarding his thoughts on liberty;

“By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may.”

Free will seems to go against the Spinoza example, but it should because what I am getting at is the concept of free will is an internal and emotional motivation—a desire— while the concept of determinism is a more external and physical one—a command. Though our genes are subject to mutation, and thus exhibit some degree of free will, our bodies and brains— the effects of those genes— are determined.

Determinism can only be overcome by becoming self-determining and free. Humans are tending toward liberty as they evolve their senses, become more aware, and accumulating more knowledge. When self-determination crosses the boundaries of another person’s determination, it is crossing the boundaries of their liberty. This is coercion, and naturally causes conflict.

Both the forces of free will and determinism are present in the universe. Free will is very small, quantum on most scales, but certainly not very strong on the large scale at our present time. Its affect is large, however, and is what causes variation.

The conservation of energy— deterministic and in line with causality— is in line with modern teachings of psychology that seem to mirror the laws of motion and the conservation of energy in physics as well: Frustration, which is created by going against the liberty, the chosen course of action, of another, seems to be one of the largest causes of aggression. Individuals that act aggressively are seen to take on two types; chronically overcontrolled and undercontrolled aggressive. Undercontrolled aggressive individuals are those who are quick to react to frustration with aggression, while the chronically overcontrolled tend to build their aggression up. It is energy and it has to go somewhere. Those who release their anger more readily— the undercontrolled aggressive type— are less likely to blow up in short bursts and act out in as extreme of behavior as those who hold their anger in.

If someone acts negatively there can be expected a response of the same magnitude. The same system can be said of positive and neutral interactions. The distinction between action and reaction is purely arbitrary, because any of the forces can be considered an action, in which case the corresponding force automatically becomes the associated reaction, much like the Big Bang and the Big Crunch. Reactions are always of the same magnitude but that magnitude is directed by the individuals in the way they react to the situation— by their free will.

Organisms are faced with a choice when it comes to sharing space and matter (and choice is where free will meets determinism); they can accommodate the other at their own loss, avoid or postpone the issue, collaborate together, compromise, or try to win a conflict through competition.

For instance, an individual may take a selfish attack from an outsider and respond by retaliation, by doing something nice for them, by internalizing the emotions, or a combination of these depending on what is seen as the best for the individual at the moment— taking into consideration the magnitude of the attack and all other factors. The retaliation effort could stop future attacks or it could fuel more. Being forgiving and giving anyway may thwart negative emotions, calm down a stressed and angry family member, or it could be a waste and show submission. Internalizing the reaction may mean it will do more damage or influence aggression in the future when it may not be wanted, but in the end it may keep the individual from losing a conflict. However, if the attack is seen as something other than a threat by the defendant, possibly a verbal insult from someone who hasn’t earned any respect anyways, or something else trivial, internalizing the reaction may not do much damage.
Most animals have learned to avoid conflict, when it is unnecessary, due to issues such as pain and fear— mechanisms that were passed on because they worked in past situations and are now being tried again in the next generation. Simply, if one doesn't have anything to win in a conflict there is only something to be lost. Animals have complex value systems which have been screened by natural selection to be very specific to their needs. Some animals thrive on conflict, such as the large predators. They still do not fight just for the sake of it unless they are diseased. Most animals tend to exhibit tendencies of both fight and flight, though they may be relatively influenced in one direction over the other.
According to a model of social evolution by W.D. Hamilton, social interactions can be categorized into one of four kinds;
“Mutually beneficial - a behaviour that increases the direct fitness of both the actor and the recipient
Selfish - a behaviour that increases the direct fitness of the actor, but the recipient suffers a loss
Altruistic - a behaviour that increases the direct fitness of the recipient, but the actor suffers a loss
Spiteful - a behaviour that decreases the direct fitness of both the actor and the recipient”

He asserts also that natural selection favors mutually beneficial or selfish behaviors. This makes sense from a standpoint of the selfish gene.

When individuals have an advantage over others they are more likely to experience success. People assert themselves when they come across success in their lives. There have been test series held where relatively similar individuals are unknowingly given separate challenges, some of which succeed at the challenge and the others fail. After the tests they were put in a situation where an individual attacked them, aggressing more as time went on. Those who succeeded on the previous tests tended to react to exponential aggression with increasing counter-attacks and those who failed tended not to increase their aggression. Those subjects who did well gained confidence from success. Confidence increases ones internal locus of control, which is an individual’s belief that they have the power to create change in their life and around them. The external locus of control exists when an individual feels that it is out of their control. This comes from failure.

If the individual senses failure upon aggressing on the cause of the frustration, such as by an authority—a figure or group with more strength and the ability to punish— the individual will store the frustration like a battery. That individual is more likely to release their aggression on another whom is similar to the original agitator in some way, as long as it does not lead to punishment or some other form of reprisal.

As another note on aggression, according to Konrad Lorenz, a Nobel Prize winner, humans evolved from a flight species. Like most primates we would run from danger if it came our way since we have no natural weapons such as claws or fangs to fight back. When humans developed external weapons, however, they gained the ability to fight. Unlike fighting animals, which evolved alongside their weapons, humans have not inherited genetic regulations for intraspecific aggression like other animals have. We don’t know when to stop.

The strongest argument for aggression remains scarcity, however. In all cases of aggression, aside from illness, scarcity plays a role. When organisms have to share exhaustible, or rare, resources such as space, time, and food, conflict will arise. If all of this was able to be acquired, without sharing scarce resources, organisms would try to avoid conflict altogether.

There is a hierarchy of human needs which dictates human desires. When an individual feels they are satisfied enough with one set of needs they try to gain the next step. For instance, a person in need of food may not be excited about the idea of physically intensive activities that may otherwise be seen as enjoyable to a well-fed and active person. It is in chasing individual desires that people have succeeded in evolution. Therefore it is what people want that has made things the way they are and is making them the way they will be in the future. This makes it important to look at the past to understand why individuals decided what they did, to get current existence where it is, so that we can figure out what we can do to get where we want to be. This entails the study of psychological affects of environments on individuals. If they can’t have their basic needs met, they won’t have a desire to have their higher needs met.

“If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past.” – Baruch Spinoza

Most animals have a sense of negative liberty. Negative liberty is the ability to be free from interference from others. Such a liberty is exercised by such actions as by fleeing or fighting. An animal may assert its negative liberty with teeth, claws, spines, poison, tools, and much more. Animals have their own first-party sense of it and they make sure others understand this second-hand.

Animals don’t all respect each other’s liberty, though. If we are taking an immanent approach to existence and ethics, nature, as only experienced by individuals, doesn’t have any laws regarding what is right and what is wrong aside from what succeeds and what does not— what is is what is right. There is no ethical law in nature except self-preservation and individual perspectives so it is not a moral issue, as suggested in the past to have been enforced by an external deity, but one which is enforced by individuals themselves in the way that they act. God is nature—what nature wants God wants, and we are part of that.

In nature there is competition and there is hunter and hunted. Competition within a species is more common, though it is less drastic intraspecifically. However, mutual aid has developed in many species, suggesting the utility of cooperation for those organisms.

Some animals have learned to collaborate for protection and food distribution. This cooperation ensures a certain degree of positive liberty for those animals. Positive liberty is the freedom to have one’s needs met. The animals that exist with positive liberty are the more social animals, humans among them. They are more concerned with internal collaboration within a species. Cooperation is most beneficial when it is among relatives because they share more similarity in genetic structure.

Kin selection can be seen in the order Hymenoptera. This order of insects including the bees, ants, and wasps are highly social insects. Kin selection occurs when an individual from the social unit is selected to reproduce for the group. In these insects the kin whom is selected is the queen and over time she has developed a difference in phenotype. This means she has a similar genome to her relatives but because of her food supply she develops and expresses them differently than the common worker ants, such as by growing wings, being able to reproduce, and being larger. The most arguable cause of this eusocialty is due to their system of sex-determination in which haploid males result from a lack of fertilization, making them clones, and leaving the diploid daughters (if the queen mates with only one male) with an average of 3/4 of their genome in common. This is beneficial to the insects because of their sexual division of labor where queens are responsible for the reproduction of the entire hive on behalf of the others. Because the female siblings are more closely related to each other than to their own mothers and daughters it is in the interest of their genetics to engage in eusocial behavior instead of competing as individuals over sexual reproduction. They act as a superorganism. This explains the large amount of apparent altruism between the members of the colonies.

There are only a few kinds of small mammals that are arguably eusocial, including the naked mole rat, which are highly related among social groups, and some of the marmosets. The gene centered theory of evolution can explain this condition, the hymenoptera, and the mentality of humans.

In eusocial animals this explains their kin selection by closer relatedness to one another. In animals that are not so organized, the explanation is that they lack such genetic similarity.

In ant societies any of the females have the genetics to become the queen. The same seems true of all eusocial animals. In ants, the female who gets the most food through kin selection starts to grow wings, gain the ability to reproduce, and become larger (and possibly put out pheromones to stop the others). It's a change in their phenotype, not their genotype, which allows them to do this. It's how they are treated. In some marmosets the most dominant female will trigger a response in the others that allows her to become the queen; ovulation stoppage. This is only possible because the animals are so related. The same is true of the naked mole rat.

We're not related enough that humans are capable of kin selection, so we don't have queens, but we do participate in the process of others' reproduction through social and sexual selection. Social and sexual selection in ants tends to the colony at large because the ants are more related to each other due to males passing significantly (75%) less DNA than the queen. Humans, on the other hand tend to extend our social selection to our families first, our friends second, and society at large last. Cooperative parenting extends further in ant societies.

Every individual is self-centered. Even acts of altruism can be seen as acts of selfishness in biology, but known as reciprocal altruism, bilateral symbiosis, or mutualism. Kin selection is one such example of strong reciprocal altruism. In return for protecting a queen, members of a group have their genetic sequences passed on more efficiently by being closely related to the queen and having her and her children protected by the rest of the social unit.

Association, occurring on many scales, arises from the laws of natural selection that give preference to those with the most force— those with teammates. Individuals want to preserve themselves and they have associated in larger groups in order to do so.

Associations are built on common experience and shared perception as individuals. Common dangers, needs, goals, and desires are the forces that bring people together. Humans have found that their happiness, past a certain point of subsistence, depends greatly on their ability to succeed as team players within groups. They have found that by associating with one another, to the degree that it is beneficial, they can engage in mutual protection and the sharing of resources. Spontaneous order, such as the rise of property, the forming of lines, and stigmergy, are all forms of avoiding intraspecific conflict and rely on shared goals.

Positive behavior gets selected in by society. The most capable of existing under their relative circumstances have the greatest chance of survival. In human society, this means being able to get along with and please other people.

Within societies there does exist competition, however. This is inspired by what is known as a free rider problem; individuals who contribute less to society than the amount they take. Humans enjoy leisure, productive or not, but they seem to have a disdain for subsistence work. If they can get by with less work they'll do it even if they enjoy working in their free time. The only reason a person will do more work in their free time is if they feel that it is worth the return somehow. Free riders do not offer that return. Humans are specialized creatures; they can be well-humored or not, intelligent or moronic, obese or anorexic or a combination of these traits and more. They have many differences which can not be charted entirely. It is possible that language itself developed so widely largely as a means to gossip about free riders in order to restrict their social acceptance.

Like when an individual expresses his or her own free will, societies may also internally direct their future. They are also subject to forces of selection, however, just as individuals are. When societies make decisions about where they are going, this is known as intrasocietal selection. Some choices fail, and the society suffers for it, but some societies make choices that allow the society to continue and pass on its genes and memes.

Societies evolve most when they have a rapid increase in leisure, information, and innovation. When a society evolves intrasocietally it may do so through alterations of their own ideas or by discovering or inventing something new. Change in ideology is also a strong internal factor in the evolution of societal systems.
When a society uses the ideas of another culture it is called diffusion. When a society stops existing, due to being conquered or its members leaving for another one, it is called intersocietal selection.

I’m going to call the ecological forces that are imposed on societies, such as diseases and predators, extrasocietal selection. When a society comes across new ideas by discovery it is often due to chance, which is another cause of societal evolution. Many changes in societies have occurred due to environmental fluctuations and other biophysical reasons. The state may have its origins here.

When humans innovate on their own free will it is usually due to the fact that they have needs, such as hunger and transportation, and improving ways to meet those needs is a natural instinct. Those societies that continue the strongest have larger populations. This allows for more innovation since more people can work on solving problems.

Subsistence technology seems to be one of the largest factors in enacting change in societies. When subsistence technologies change, the capability for the size and complexity of the technologies do as well. Hunter-gatherer societies are restricted to bare minimum subsistence, while industrial societies create a surplus that allows for much more opportunity and choice. This allows different kinds of societies to develop, and with them new cultural and economic systems, which also get put into the feedback loop.

EXCHANGE

The utility of an item or situation is the human estimate of its ability to satisfy human desires; it is the human valued estimate for it. People have different subjective utilities for different circumstances. This is known as one’s marginal utility. Individuals have a desire to make their own choices about what holds utility to them. Individuals exist in the past, present, and future and most want liberty when it comes to time. Freedom through time can be expressed in the ability to go uncoerced and have what one needs as present liberty, the ability to continue living and having what one needs as the future liberty, and the ability to own property as liberty with one's past. People have been shown to have a strong, though diminishing, marginal utility for property rights.

The respect of property began as a system, or tacit contract, of gift exchange. In kin-based groups like hunter-gatherers, property is often donated to the commons. However, horticulture eventually ended up in the barter system— where goods and services were traded directly for other goods and services.

The barter system worked for a long time, but as society grew industrially it became more and more difficult to match marginal utilities between traders. A person who grows apricots may be willing to trade some for a hammer, but if a blacksmith does not like apricots he or she has no incentive to make the hammer. Barter relies on a double-coincidence of wants; when both people need an item from one another. If the apricots seem to be a happy medium of exchange in all other bargains but this one, this may be a dilemma for the horticulturist. He or she may trade the apricots to someone who has products the blacksmith wants, but that is one more person who must accept apricots, in order to get a hammer. If there were many people who grew apricots the person willing to trade a hammer may have already gotten apricots for their manufacture. Barter became complicated when industries demanded more specialization. This is because barter requires a double coincidence of wants where, again, each person wants what the other person wants to have and vice versa.

The obvious solution was money because it allowed a medium of consensual exchange between strangers and thus in a more industrial and widespread economy. The first way this was done was by using generally desired commodities. Early forms of commodity money included food, seashells, and jewelry. Metal is a staple in the history of commodity money because of its high utility and resistance to entropy. Currency based on the precious metals was a significant development because they lasted a good amount of time, as well as carried general value during a time of great demand for metal and smithery. The precious metals were in such a demand that someone who may not have even needed them as an individual could use a certificate of title to a certain amount for the sake of bargaining. This system was passed on and a currency-based market began.

Paper money, or monetary scrip, developed from commodity money. This kind of money was printed largely on a gold or silver standard and basis of specie. This basis, metal, is what the money was redeemable in and thus money represented a title of ownership over the metal. The standard meant that gold was what everything else was measured against in value. If coined, the metal, more often than not, was kept in a bank of savings.

The invention of paper money and checks allowed wealth to be easier managed and spent as it didn't have to literally be carried on one's person, only its title did. With money came the price system. The price system is the means by which scarce goods and services are measured in value in relationship to one another. Prices reflect the marginal utility of an item in a given market setting.

A currency-based market is composed of buyers and sellers. Buyers are modeled as pursuing lower prices and sellers higher ones. Typically buyers seek lower, and sellers higher, quantities as price is increased, with each being willing to trade until the marginal value of what they would trade away exceeds that of the thing for which they would trade. Basically, people don’t generally trade (their perception of) more value for less value.

Comparative advantage is a situation in which a good can be produced at a lower opportunity cost than that of a competitor. An opportunity cost is the opportunity that is lost by taking, or not taking, a certain action. For instance, if a person were to take a shower that lasted ten minutes the opportunity cost would be anything that could be done instead of taking a shower.

Say Sue can produce 74 cobs of corn or 85 bushels of wheat in one season, while Jack can produce 75 cobs of corn or 83 bushels of wheat. For sake of example, assume both items are needed infinitely and equally.

If Sue spends half her time growing wheat and half growing corn, she will have 37 cobs of corn and 42.5 bushels of wheat, totaling 79.5 units total. If Jack does the same he will have 37.5 corn cobs and 41.5 bushels of wheat, totaling 79 units.

If Sue spends all her time growing one item she will produce 74 cobs or 85 bushels. If Jack does the same he will produce 75 cobs or 83 bushels. Jack has an absolute advantage over Sue in corn production, as he can produce one unit more than her, but Sue has one over Jack in wheat as well, as she can produce 2 more bushels of wheat.

If Sue produces corn, her own opportunity cost is 11 units of wheat, which is how many more she could have produced instead. If she produces wheat, on the other hand, her own opportunity cost is -11, which means she makes 11 more units than if she would have produced corn. Jack, if producing corn, will have a personal opportunity cost of 8, and a -8 if producing wheat. The opportunity costs between members of the group determine comparative advantage however.

If both of them spend half of their time each growing both grains equally they will have a total produce of 156.5. If Sue produces corn only, where her opportunity cost is higher, and Jack produces wheat, they will have 157 units total. If Sue produces at her comparative advantage and produces wheat while Jack produces corn they will have 160 units total. When Sue produces corn, and Jack wheat, there is an opportunity cost of 3 units compared to when it is reversed. When both split their time evenly to both corn and wheat, there is an opportunity cost of 3.5.

Sue has the comparative advantage; she should focus on that which she has the least opportunity cost, which is the production of the wheat, where she holds absolute advantage. Because she and Jack both hold absolute advantages, if they specializes in what they are best at it is the most productive for the group as a whole. In this example it turns out that it works out in favor of both of their absolute advantages, but it would work out even if Jack produced one unit less corn than Sue did. Any more than that would start to affect the opportunity costs. If Jack had little to no capability to produce corn, but the same amount of ability to produce the previously stated wheat, Sue’s comparative advantage would be in corn, because her opportunity cost had switched, even though she holds absolute advantage in the production of both.

The result of comparative advantages has been division of labor, and when barter developed into money it started more specialization in trade; which was capable of reducing costs, and thus prices, of goods and services. This spawned an economy with elements of competition. Specialization kept prices low and allowed for a higher standard of living.

There are different market types that result from the use of specialization and the following examples will show the extremes of the margins.

The first type of market is a perfectly competitive one. In perfect competition, prices are always brought down to cost because there are many sellers and many buyers. This occurs when there are no barriers to entry into the industry, firms in the industry have no advantage over potential new entrants, and competitors and buyers are completely informed about the prices of other firms in the industry. No firm can influence the price of their product above the average cost of running the operation. Any firm in this kind of industry is called a price-taker because it must accept the price that others accept for a similar product because it exists in the competitive market and none of them can under or over sell one another. They accept the prices they are given because those are the reflections of their costs. It is the ability to find another provider who is selling for a lower price (who has probably reduced costs for themselves somehow) that makes the competitive market keep prices low.

Market selection is very similar to natural selection in that entrepreneurs, those who open new markets or methods, have a rate of success which reflects its benefit to society. This is because markets rely on voluntary exchange. If a market is not beneficial to both producers and consumers it will not subsist.

Buyers are attributed to always wanting the lowest price. Sellers always want to accept higher prices. A market exists when the lowest price a seller will accept for a good is as low as, or lower than, the highest price a buyer is willing to pay. If an entrepreneur fails to meet sufficient costs to stay in operation it is a market failure. This is very similar to how harmful genomes are selected out of nature. If the business meets sufficient funds to meet all costs and stay in operation it is a market success which is similar to the success of beneficial mutations.

The other extreme in the market is called a monopoly. Monopolies are price-makers, which means that they can dictate the price of their goods in absence of competition. They exist due to natural or artificial barriers to entry that keep a market from being subject to competition. A trait of a monopoly is glut, also called a surplus income, from prices that are above the cost of operation and out of equilibrium.

Equilibrium is when economic forces are balanced and, in the absence of external influences, the value of economic variables will not change. The equilibrium price is when the amount supplied is equal to the amount demanded in the market. When there is an equilibrium price there is neither too little nor too much of the product to be distributed to those who want it.

Artificial, or legal, monopolies are due to legal restrictions on entrance into the market. Such restrictions can include public franchises which are exclusive rights given by government to supply a good or service. Another barrier includes state licensing to supply goods and services. A third is the patent which restricts the use or reproduction of a good or service without contractual consent. Yet another are subsidies which give artificial privilege to firms and allow them to grow too large to fail. Most monopolies are artificially created by laws including the exclusion of land ownership, patents, licensing, subsidization, zoning, credit, and more. There are cases of natural monopolies, however.

Natural monopolies come in two forms. Geographic monopolies occur when a resource has been monopolized by being available only in a certain region which is owned by a particular firm or government. Without access to the resource competitors can't offer an equivalent product and thus suffer a barrier of entry. The ideal firm size is the size at which a firm competes at opimal performance. Economies of scale allow default monopolies to occur by making it more efficient, in certain industries, to function with large firm sizes to benefit from economies of scale and operate with lower costs of production.

Monopolies exist when there is a single seller of a product. This is due to a barrier on the entry into a market. In a monopoly market the monopolist can charge whatever price they want because they have no competition from others accepting lower prices.

Just as a monopoly is a single seller a monopsony is a single buyer. Where monopolies can charge whatever price they want monopsonies can demand the price they want. One example of a monopsony market would be the US government military labor market. Right now the government acts as a single buyer for military protection and they can ask whatever price they want. Usually they make it sound like a great opportunity and then skip out on their promises, but when that doesn't work they can draft. They can demand military labor and pay as little as bare subsistence for it.

Government is one form of monopoly, and in particular, the monopoly of the use of force. This is seen positively or negatively depending on the teller of the story. The one I will tell you is appreciative of the capabilities of people to develop strategies to help themselves and each other, but finds that government (as I will define it) has nothing at all to do with these achievements, and only coincides with organization on a historical basis—not a practical one—as I hope I am pointing out.

POLITICS

The kyklos was a concept of the Ancient Greeks that described the evolution of polities. Polybius, for example— one philosopher who described the kyklos, or anacyclosis— saw the system starting with primitive monarchy, whereby strong individuals ruled, which feel and gave way to the reason of a benevolent kingship, working in the favor of the people, which would then turn to a despotic tyranny after his death and the passing of the crown. When the people become unhappy with the rule of one they become enticed by the rule of the successful few, the aristocracy, who overthrow the tyranny. Similar to the transition from kingship to tyranny, those who take the place of the aristocracy grow in their thirst of power, becoming an exploitive oligarchy. Afterward, the people rebel once more and begin a democracy— the rule of the many— which devolves into ochlocracy, or mob rule, whereby the cycle starts over. This, of course, is not the only take on the kyklos; Plato, Aristotle, and more have contrasting beliefs.

Community concerns and social needs have been carried through in many different ways, and communities and their organizations have evolved over time. What Polybius was pointing out is his understanding of the kyklos, however, was about the abilities and intentions of the polity or ruler. In his view, government was either benevolent or malignant, and it transitioned back and forth between the two. In monarchy, for instance, according to Polybius, there is a struggle for power that is resolved when a great person gains enough respect to unite people. This begins the kingship. After this benevolent and just leader dies, tyrants may more easily fill the role left in his stead. The difference between governments in their forms (rule of one, few, or many) is benevolence or malignance. That is, government by choice, or government by force. Thus, Polybius says, “It is by no means every monarchy which we can call straight off a kingship, but only that which is voluntarily accepted by the subjects and where they are governed rather by an appeal to their reason than by fear and force.”

If benevolent social structures are upheld only by an appeal to reason some may then argue that the difference between types of political organization can be categorized into those that are archistic, or assert rule by force, and those that are an- or pan- archistic and assert leadership by appeal to reason and voluntary subjection, or not at all. We can see a bit of this difference when we contrast some of the early voluntarily-elected Lawspeakers (kings) of the celtic people with hereditary tyrannies that later took their place and enforced taxes on the people.

There are generally two standard views taken on the state. Functionalists believe the state to have its roots in social organization. They generally believe that a monopoly on the use of force is necessary for the group, and it thus developed to facilitate the needs of people. Conflict theorists, on the other hand, believe the state to be controlled by a powerful elite, and some, such as anarchists, believe it has its roots in control and domination. Functionalists are much more likely to believe the state is social organization, whereas conflict theorists may see a difference between social organization and government. If Polybius were alive today, he may be inclined to say that the kyklos shift between functionality (benevolent leadership) and conflict (malignant control). While a populace is generally okay with its social structure leadership can be said to be generally benevolent, but while its population is mostly discontent with their government that institution may be said to be largely malignant and coercive. The main way to tell if leadership is benevolent or malignant—a state— is to ask whether or not it is aggressive and, if it is, the degree of aggression it can maintain. If aggression can be held monopolistically, and without reprisal, a state has formed. One must remember that the definition of a state is the monopoly on the use of force.

The liberal monopoly on the use of force in the United States is certainly preferable to some less developed nations (internally speaking), largely because it exists as a republic. Though a republic is not as ideal as freedom from the state, it would be inconsistent and false if I didn’t admit the rise in equality that republics offer over more authoritarian governments. Capitalist republics certainly offer more freedom and abundance than do feudalistic monarchies.

Sometimes republics act benevolently (as does any government, largely to maintain an illusion of legitimacy) to their own population, and in this way may be somewhat seen as legitimate on their behalf. However, first world capitalist republics (developing from mercantilism, naturally) supply a welfare state to their own citizenship, while excluding others from wealth by creating artificial borders and exploiting other nations through imperialism, colonialism, and globalization. From an external view, republics are still very malignant. Only time can tell how the kyklos will play out in real life, but it is interesting and important to take note of the different forces and how they interact with one another. Before we go any further, let’s take a look at the way the use of force is exercised and legitimized in the United States; by way of the vote.

Every adult citizen of the United States has the right to vote regardless of their religion, race, sex, gender, preference, etc. with the only exception being those who are felons. All political power in the United States, according to the constitution, is derived from this act. Despite this fact, I want to stress the fact that by politics I have never meant the peaceful or positive organization of social relationships. In fact, I mean the exact opposite. Our government is a violent monopoly, assuming our participation, but is very good at keeping its population pacified.

The structure of the US government is laid out in its Constitution, which outlines the three branches of the Republic; Executive, Judiciary, and Legislative.

The legislative branch, known as the United States Congress, is composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress has the powers of taxation, control over the monetary system, roads, the postal system, patents, felonies, courts, military, and more. Congress also governs Washington, DC.

The House of Representatives is composed of 435 voting members from congressional districts based on the state’s population as referenced from the most recent census. An individual must be at least 25 years old and have been a citizen for at least seven years to be a member of the house. Terms are two years, but there are no limits to the number of terms that may be served. In the house there are also five delegates and a resident commissioner, all from US territories and Washington DC. These individuals may not vote in matters affecting the whole house, but may participate in committees. Any legislative bill to raise revenue must come from the House.
The Senate is another body of Congress that is composed of two representatives from each state, regardless of the population. Thus, there are 100 senators. The Senate is responsible for giving advice and consenting to particular Presidential appointments of officers as well.

The approval of both chambers is required to pass any legislation. The approval of the President is also necessary. In the case the President vetoes a decision, it may be passed if 2/3 of both chambers vote in favor. Congress is supposed to be limited by the Constitution, leaving all other affairs to the lower governing bodies such as state and county governments and the market.

The Executive Branch is in charge of seeing that matters are being carried through effectively. It consists of the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, the Cabinet, and executive departments and agencies.

The President is the head of state, the head of government, chief diplomat, and the commander-in-chief. As head of state, the president is expected to personify the state and its continual progression. He or she is expected to be a figurehead. As the head of government, he or she is expected to ensure that the Constitution is being upheld and that government is working correctly. As chief diplomat, the President is expected to have positive relationships and negotiating abilities with other nations. As commander-in-chief he or she is expected to be the head of the military. The President may be impeached by a majority vote in the house, or a 2/3 majority in the Senate for specified reasons, and has no power to dissolve Congress. The President also has the power to pardon (release) criminals convicted of offenses against the Federal Government, enact executive orders, and appoint judges and justices of the law.

The Vice President is the second highest executive official in the government. If the President dies, the Vice President takes his or her place. The Vice President is also the President of the Senate, and can only vote in order to break a tie.

The Secretary of State is third in line when it comes to the power of the Executive Branch, and is a member of the Cabinet.

The Cabinet, the heads of the executive departments, are chosen by the President with the approval of the Senate. Independent agencies such as NASA, USPS, EPA, and more are also part of the Executive Branch of government.

The Judicial Branch of the government is composed of the Supreme Court, its district courts, and others. The Supreme Court is responsible for adjudicating any kind of controversy regarding interpretation of the constitution, the Federal Government, disputes between States. It may also declare legislation or executive action as unconstitutional, thus nullifying it and setting precedent for future disputes.

Though the government in the United States theoretically derives its power from the constitutional right of the people to vote, and has checks and balances to regulate power, it is the act of force that really keeps a state in power, even here. The political checks on power don’t include the desires of those who are not rich enough to gain political office, but only those who are personally wealthy or gain the favor of the ruling class in order to support their campaign with status, time, and money. There are many who have decided that they did not want to vote based on ethical grounds (participating in the choosing of hierarchies means choosing authority over others). They found that if one did not want to be restricted to choosing who holds political power through voting, but instead to challenge the idea of authority altogether, they had no ability to do so without persecution. Political power, then, is not derived from the people but, instead, by the bullet. Those who can afford the most shots are the government, and, if anything, we are just lucky our government lets us pick which one of their members can rule us. The powers that be don’t like to use bullets all of the time; they prefer to use persuasion, when it is possible, because it is less prone to inciting revolt. Governments will use bullets if they have to do so to remain in power, but they have many ways of persuading us not to challenge their power.

Subsidies and protection of media monopolies ensure that only information that will benefit the state is presented to the mainstream as news. Those outlets that do make it into the mainstream are seen as wing nuts and are not given the attention they deserve at times.

These monopoly media outlets are constantly affirming the superiority of the current system to that of any other. Our own nation’s media sources are but extensions of the state, and they serve the role of its preservation. In this way, the state does not have to repress its citizens’ bodies with tanks and bombs, but can instead rely on media filtering and special agencies, which deal with specific cases (such as the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security), and the ordinary police grunts to keep the normal, and media subdued, population under control.

The police, as well as the other agencies, are given the roles of keeping the population in line for the benefit of the rich, and in protecting the citizens of the nation from an outside threat or an internal one such as crime. In this way the state perpetuates the concept of its necessity that much further. The citizens start to believe that the very forces that keep them from material abundance, and thus physical safety and emotional satisfaction, are necessary for their life in general, and that without the state its people would start killing and murdering one another and see no great benefit in cooperation at all.

Instead of focusing on the real solution— the elimination of compulsive behavior (of which the state is a key component)— we are encouraged to participate in it through the use of our vote and our dollar, which are not truly ours by choice— but instead by the lack of—and to use these tools to overpower those with whom we disagree. Had we the capability to withdraw our membership and join another in which to vote, or to avoid the money of the state and instead print our own which we feel works better in our favor, it would be a choice. Such a choice is stifled by the state. It is because of the forced infeasibility of alternatives, as by laws and regulations, that these remain unilateral monopolies instead of bilateral agreements under free and fair competition.

There are many ways to arrange the political spectrum, but most people are generally familiar with the left-wing/right-wing dichotomy. Usually the left-wing is associated with a stronger stance on positive rights and a more centralized means of going about this, such as socialism, while the right-wing is associated with stronger negative rights and decentralism, such as capitalism. On one end you have the Libertarian Party, representing the more extreme right. They are for limited government (minarchism) and believe that free markets and near absolute property rights are a fair way to carry out economic matters. On the far left you have the Communists, who believe that free markets should be the first thing to be abolished and all property should be held in common under the maxim, “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

Between these two groups you get the system we are most familiar with, where some services are socialized through the state and others are privately held by individuals. Dead in the middle you will find centrists who do not lean to either side more than the other, but are clearly statists. On either side will be Republicans or Democrats, Republicans leaning more right and Democrats to the left.

We are expected to choose one set of values over another. Not our own set of values, however, but instead the set of values that complete an elected politician’s platform. These politicians serve as the icons of the value-positions of their parties.
Let’s establish the benefits and costs of each form of political organization. The left-wing recognizes the need for positive rights, the ability to have the means to survive. This is a completely logical position to have. After all, without a fair start any one of us can become slaves. The right may argue that we can not choose our parents and that inequality is just a part of societal nature, however. Nonetheless it seems a logical position that we must have access to the things that we need. This is commonly brought to its next conclusion; that the right of society is greater than that of the individual. This position, when held as an ideal, is known as collectivism and is most commonly associated with the left, although any social services or welfare government is a form of collectivism, including the right’s version of it.

It’s interesting to note that collectivism, in theory, oftentimes comes with a support of a more direct form of democracy, while its antithesis, individualism, tends toward a more representative form. In practice, however, the opposite seems to be the case.

Representative democracy is much more efficient in a centralized economic setting due to the fact that so many choices have to be made federally, which means that in a democracy many more opinions would have to be informed. This gives rise for the need of a skilled class of decision-makers who are more educated on seeing the “bigger picture”. It certainly opposes decisions based on unanimity, because its goal is not the consent of the individual, but instead the desire of the faceless masses, whose majoritarian desires may be halted by individual priority if left to unanimity.

For the collectivist, everything there is should belong to the community at large, and thus decisions must be made by the community somehow. This can not possibly take the form of consensus-based decision-making, because such a process is too long and drawn out to run an entire system in its entirety. It depends on supplemental systems like markets to fill voids left between agreements. Looking for a compromise between opposing viewpoints takes time, and if every decision was to be made by all of society in this manner (unanimity) we could not have a functioning economy. The economy of the collectivist must be centrally planned, but in this central planning, decisions must be made, even at the cost of a risk to a minority of its membership. Mandates, then, are given decision-making privilege, consensus is not respected as the means of making legitimate agreements, and the majority will always reign superior over the minority. In a collectivist system, those who step out of line will face the tyranny of the majority, mob rule, or a well established ochlocracy.

This is a problem that was due to what the 19th century individualist anarchist, Josiah Warren, would refer to as ‘forced combinations.’ Josiah Warren had taken part in a socialist experiment whereby a wealthy philanthropist, by the name of Robert Owen, had started a commune where all property was shared in common between the residents. Josiah Warren witnessed much conflict due to the loss of property rights. He witnessed laziness and disrespect for others’ valued possessions and ideas. His concept of forced combinations was that individuals all had their own peculiarities, uniqueness, and individuality that would not allow them to share goals whole-heartedly in every area of life, and that to ask them to do so was to cause conflict between them. For this reason, Warren advocated private property, though he was still interested in solving the labor issue.

A more direct democracy has been historically more compatible with individualism, despite the right today tending towards representation in a republic. An instance of this can be seen in some maritime and other market-oriented societies as well as in the formation of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles outlined the structure of a more decentralized confederation (opposed to a strong central federation like today’s government) run on decisions in a delegate-based democracy, favoring unanimous decisions between those delegates in the Continental Congress . The original Articles, though fallible as they were, represented a higher degree of democracy for its participants and were only changed when centralism was desired by the Federalists to support their collectivism of the rich, the state, which did not give voting rights to most of the population and had become subject to popular uprising because of it. After the American Revolution, Congress had lost its importance and decentralism, along with trade issues, was threatening the sovereignty of the states over their people. The rich had a collective stake in their class together.

The debates of the Continental Congress, held by the rich, were kept secret and the new Constitution was decided to go into affect with a majority rule vote instead of the unanimous decision required by the previous Articles. Rhode Island had not even accepted the invitation to the Convention, and had often been the state to veto taxes in the first place. The vote passed, but illegally. One historian is noted for saying that;

“[The] Antifederalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the ‘consolidated government’ proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a ‘splendid empire’ that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.”

The Federalists did make a valid argument in some areas. Some of the states had been having conflicts between each other, as well as internal rebellions such as Shay’s. The Articles were lacking a system of courts, and this made it hard for the Confederation to sort out problems between its member states. I am not convinced, however, that centralizing all power was the best means of solving the problem. A system of conflict mediation may have been necessary, but the Articles allowed for means by which to put new systems into effect voluntarily. In reality, class seems to be the key issue, with land speculation being a large part of it. Rebellions such as Shay’s were natural responses to extortion.

In one way we can see the dilemma of the left and right as having two opposing problems. The right charges the left with a lack of incentive given to work, and claim that the taking of one’s product by the community, taxation, is a form of slavery. On the left, however, the argument is that private ownership of capital which others use for employment allows extortion to occur in favor of the capitalist. Both of these stances, in my opinion, are based on an understanding of cost, but without its proper understanding and application as a principle.

The right fears that those who work harder will not be able to benefit from their extra effort, and will instead be paying social welfare to free riders, who are content with having less at their own expense, but want more at others’. That is to say, the right fears that the price of their labor will fall below cost, and that they will become serfs to the community at large, unable to reach a level of happiness that the other individuals in the community do not have, or care to have, for themselves.

The left, on the other hand, fears that if capital is to be placed in the hands of a single individual it will be monopolized for the benefit of that individual and if others do not have access to it they must pay for its use. That is to say, the left fears that prices for the use of capital could rise over cost, and that their labor must then be sold at a price that is below cost to the capitalist, as in slavery.

Aside from these economic issues, and to mix things up completely, the left and the right seem also to be divided by their cultural viewpoints and their social regulations. The left tends to be more socially liberal, supporting the rights of women, other races, and minority groups such as the non-heterosexual population. In this way they are supporting negative social rights, the right from interference for these groups.

The right tends to be more socially conservative, pressing religious issues into law such as bans on homosexual conduct, godlessness, and abortion. In this way it tends to press positive rights, those they feel will benefit the majority, on minority groups such as pagans, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics, some of which are quickly becoming mainstream viewpoints.

When you get down to the core issues of these political stances both sides represent desires that all of us have. We all simultaneously have a desire to obtain property and to retain it. We all want to be left alone, but to affect the world. Do these desires not reflect positive and negative rights? Are these behaviors not intrinsic to the ego that guides us?

If you placed two individuals, of the exact same capabilities, in a situation with the exact same amount of material wealth to manage, we could guess with some degree of probability what position on the political spectrum they would be if they were to take one of two actions.

If an individual were to give some of his or her wealth to the other, this would be an action of altruism, which represents a collectivist notion of sharing wealth. You could say then that collectivism is a product of the superego.

If the individual were to steal some of the other’s wealth, this would be an action representing greed. As greed is the restriction of others from one’s wealth, theft is an extreme form of negative liberty, and could be said to be a process of the id.

It should be noted that both of these stances have their negative and positive affects. On one end, greed is what keeps us from giving all that we have up to others, to a point that we have nothing for ourselves and we cease to exist. On the other end, altruism can ensure that others have what they need, and that makes it easier for them to reciprocate in the future, almost like an insurance plan. It’s when the two cancel each other out that we have the real problems. It is when negative rights become an infringement on others’ positive rights, or vice versa, that the dilemma truly starts. Can we find equilibrium between the two? I think so.

FUTURE

We have studied the past— the way that the universe went about the process of arranging itself into the present—and we saw that evolution is a culminating process, that life is the opposite of death and entropy, and that humanity has developed capabilities unforeseen in the universe before us.

We followed causality into the present where we discussed people in the current stage of existence. People are good and evil simultaneously and relative to each other. If put into the right situations they will cooperate, but if put into the wrong conditions they will dominate and control one another. This has led to multiple strategies for existence, including competing varieties of socio-political and economic systems.

Causality is in effect everywhere. From the transfer of energy from my foot to a ball all the way to the transfer of frustration between strangers, everything has a cause. If we want to build a society based on consent we have to know the properties of our foundational material—the human mind—and the causes and effects related to it. We have found that people are most willing to cooperate with and respect one another when they are facing similar circumstances. When one party has an advantage over the other, that advantage will be exploited as far as it can go. It was thought possible that authority had established itself naturally— and this is true— but the natural incidence that allowed for it was not genetic variation as previously thought in the great man theory of history, but instead by socio-ecological issues such as cultural acceptance of monopoly and the control of natural resources. If we want to direct the flow of social causality we have to direct culture to another system— but it has to be organic. It has to feel right to people. It must have their consent.

In the following pages, covering concepts for the future, we are going to look at ways to increase human cooperation with pragmatic and practical methods that are voluntary and internally directed. While looking at some of the root issues of our social problems a little more deeply I will be discussing alternatives to the system as it is. I will try to provide a coherent and easily understood analysis of societal ills and a vision for the future that is free from compulsive authority and widens the range of consent much wider.

After I have described an economic and social system based on mutual aid and voluntary consent I will briefly entertain notions for the future of a world in which freedom, equality, and sustainability are taken to the extremes of human hypercooperation. I will point to what I feel are the logical conclusions, consequences, and teleological pathways of consent. We will end with the possible fate of humanity and the rest of the universe.

MUTUALITY

With the social, political, and economic situation presenting itself as it is one must ask how we can evolve past our problems and reach a proper equilibrium between our dichotomy of rights—positive and negative— that is based on our psychology as selfish, as well as giving, individuals who are evolving toward a harmony of needs.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a German whose dialectical philosophies, continue to change the world and may be able to help with our question. According to Hegel, life was often made of absolute contradictions that represented subjective reality, while maintaining an objective truth. This truth could be found and shared by self-conscious actors becoming aware of one anothers’ self-consciousness. That is, by communication without argument; a dialogue, a dialectic. He discusses the way that opposing viewpoints will eventually sublate one another and come to the same conclusion, rendering both viewpoints conflated in the end. To Hegel, it’s a subjective and lonely reality and we are all looking for recognition from one another. Time is the evolution of being recognized. His Master-Slave Dialectic, which described the mutual dependence and false understanding of power between social classes, influenced the birth of both anarchism and Marxism, among others who accepted the title Hegelians. Dialectics have important implications for the way that we should arrange our social structures. Hegel reminds us that “Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights.”

It’s not a matter of whether we should give up on our own negative or positive rights in order to have the other, but how to balance them properly to where as little rights as possible are being forfeited— positive and negative. How do they sublate one another to become conflated? Instead of relying on one wing of the political spectrum to impose its mass on another, let’s instead ask why these people feel this way. Let’s ask ourselves not what a smart liberal would do, a good Democrat, a wise Libertarian, Green, or Republican, but rather what is the most logical and ethical conclusion that is simultaneously sustainable and meets the needs of everyone involved, even if they don’t agree with the majority?

How did we get where we are to begin with and how should we apply new principles, such as dialectics, to get even further?

Like all liberties— negative and positive— property only exists as long as it is respected, as is made clear by these three statements from the Egoist, Max Stirner;

"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.”

“What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing.”

“I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"

Though the sentiment may sound extreme, it is the truth of reality. If someone wants to get away with a crime, and feels like they can, they will likely do so and may even succeed. It is a liberty given by nature. If a hyena can wrestle carrion from buzzards it will become the owner of the carcass and feast.

Just as the liberty to use property is the result of excluding others from using it, domination in conflict is what makes justice (if what is right is what exists for the moment) according to the laws of nature— as can be seen in the food chain and in intraspecific violence. If I can not physically demand my liberties, or ask someone else to in my stead, they do not exist in the real world. For this reason, all rights have this very same nature. Before one can have rights, they must use their liberties. Rights only exist for those who put them in their contracts.

Expressed rights are built on the fact they are carried out. That is to say that tacit rights are the foundation upon which expressed rights may function. The expressed contract grants rights while tacit agreements only respect liberties. Liberties are those actions one may take that are granted by nature. Rights are granted by contract and human understanding. It may be against the rules of your employment to take a break (for instance), and you may lack the right, but you always retain your liberty to act however you please. Some workers slack when the boss is not around. Your can always act as well, however, and may fire you if he or she finds out. Had you the right, an expressed agreement that it was okay— like a contract— there would be no such repercussions.

As social animals, humans have learned to get together for mutual aid and to create rights. Intelligence has allowed this to come about, and through the use of contract, which is fundamental to a true understanding of rights, they are enacted. This is made clearer by the 20th century Mutualist, Clarence Lee Swartz;

“Fundamentally and elementally, of course, there is only one right - the right of might. To talk about “natural” rights and “inalienable” rights is to talk about something that does not exist. To speak of natural rights implies that there is an unquestioned or an indisputable right of some kind that is inherent in the individual when he is born. If that were really true, then the right of might could not operate against it. In order that the right of might could not so operate, the inherent or natural or inalienable right would have to be of such a nature that no force could overcome it. Merely to state the case in that way is sufficient to show the nonsense of the notion that there can be anything superior to the right of might; unless there is some metaphysical meaning attached to those three adjectives that is not fathomable by the finite mind.

The real truth of the matter is that, since there is no right superior to that of might, all other rights, of whatever nature, exist only by sufferance; in other words, by contract or agreement. For certain considerations (such as the desire for peace and tranquility and other things that make for happiness) the strongest have agreed to yield, in certain fields, their prerogative; they have consented to forego the privileges which their strength assures them — and thereby there come into existence the elements of modern society.

It should be emphasized that the term "society," as used herein, refers to that social organism which, in its abstract sense, implies the union or sum of relations by which the individuals of any group are associated, and not to that political organization known as "government" or "state.'' The difference between the two is fundamental and vital, and, if not clearly distinguished in the mind of the student, serious confusion of thought will result. All political states and governments are founded on physical force, and, as explained in Chapter I, are necessarily aggressive and invasive in character. Considering their origin and functions, they must be of that nature in order to survive. Society, on the other hand, has no such origin and has no such functions. Out of it may issue and from it may be adapted any organization that, in the course of evolution, may arise. Society, then, as thus defined, is constituted of myriads of compacts, both express and implied, which are supposed to enable all, regardless of individual strength, to live in peace and harmony, since all recognize, more or less clearly, that that is a necessary condition of happiness.”

The average human does not usually find utility in violence or theft because there is enough material abundance that the opportunity costs of excluding the original owner from their life or property is too high. That is, it’s not worth the risk. This is reinforced by society and the contracts it places on itself. Humans have found it in their best interest to agree to abide by laws, tacit or expressed, which govern society in order that their interests are mutually protected from those who will not do so.

Society exists by the existence of social contracts. There are many philosophies of the social contract, but they all remain ways of dealing with liberty and equity among those who may free ride or coerce.

Stated many years prior by Baruch Spinoza;

“Sin cannot be conceived in a natural state, but only in a civil state, where it is decreed by common consent what is good or bad.”

Thomas Hobbes is one earlier modern example of social contract theory. For Hobbes the state of natural humanity was brutish, and so individuals had come to agree upon a ruler in order to have their larger liberties protected.

"'Good' and 'evil' are inconstant names applied haphazardly by different men to what attracts or repels them. This egotistical psychology makes the life of man in a pre-social state of nature, 'nasty, brutish and short,' a constant war of everyman with everyman. Rational, enlightened self-interest makes men want to escape such a predicament by the establishment of a contract in which they surrender the right of aggression, but not that of self-defense, to an absolute sovereign, whose commands are the law, freedom being relegated to the spheres not covered by the sovereign's commands. The social contract is binding only so long as the sovereign has power to enforce it. Sovereignty may be vested in a person or an assembly, but it must be indivisible, not a division of powers between King and Parliament, church and state."

In his Second Treatise on Government, John Locke reflected a similar stance on the state of natural man and the desire to live by contract;

"To properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the state that all people are in naturally. That is a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature. People in this state do not have to ask permission to act or depend on the will of others to arrange matters on their behalf. The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has more than another. It is evident that all human beings – as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties – are equal amongst themselves. They have no relationship of subordination or subjection unless God (the lord and master of them all) had clearly set one person above another and conferred on him an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

[…]IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”

A central idea to the thinking of John Locke was also the consent of the governed. Because he believed in the sovereignty of the individual— that every individual was free— he understood that the social contract rested on the passivity of the people it governed. As long as they did not overthrow their government, Locke suggested, a people are agreeing to its governance.

For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, however, instead of such separation of powers offered by hard-governance and individualistic rule, this meant a constant sovereignty held by the people as a whole. Though he believed that government was necessary, he felt that law-making, or sovereignty, should be controlled by the people in mass by the form of a directly-democratic legislative assembly. Just as well, according to Rousseau, a member in good-standing engaged in such a contract has the right to leave such a negotiation unless it is an act of desertion in a time of need. This shows a sense of sovereignty of the individual as the property of their self.

The opinions of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have been examples of archist social contract theory, but there are some who have disagreed about the application of the social contract and they have made very valid points. The anarchists’ vision of society is one where contracts are entered into freely and are continually renewed and adjusted. Any kind of tort offenses (those outside of contract breach) will lead to new contracts due to the internalization of costs between two relatively equal opponents and social groups in conflict, and the dialectic which will ensue from it.

Any kind of compulsion is seen as an unnecessary evil, as Pierre Proudhon makes clear in his slogan, “Liberty, not the daughter but the mother of order.” Proudhon, philosophical father of industrial anarchism, was greatly inspired by Hegel’s study of dialectics, and to him it was clear that the sublation of classes would put an end to government of man over man altogether. To quote the philosophy of anarchism’s first apparent proponent once more,

“What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, […] is substituted for that of distributive justice[…] Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.”

For Proudhon, the most truly binding and valid social contracts were freely entered into and agreed upon by all parties. In a situation like this, rules or laws become promises instead of commands. Just as it is unethical to break a promise in most scenarios, but not to challenge an unjust command, it is ethical to revolt against authority, but not to commit crimes by breaking mutually agreed upon rights.

Lysander Spooner, a later individualist anarchist and lawyer of the past who broke the letter-carrying monopoly, mirrors this criticism of government and of its relation to contract,

"Our constitutions purport to be established by 'the people,' and, in theory, 'all the people' consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of 'the people' exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given."

This represented a large problem for the anarchists, who wanted a society where contracts between individuals would replace the roles of involuntary government. Spooner had a lot more to say than that, though;

"A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. The result— and a natural one— has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practiced upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent."

To anarchists such as Spooner, the existence of government had been a long line of mafia-like control that had been passed on, and he found the idea repulsive. He goes on further to contend that government is a much more disrespectful concept than the average robber;

"But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."

To the anarchist, the existence of government is violence, and transferred into economics it is the existence of involuntary payments made for services. The existence of compulsion is proof that there is no such consent of the governed in such a situation. The anarchists found this kind of relationship to be entirely unnecessary, because they saw in the market— supply and demand— the ability of people to solve one another’s problems and voluntarily exchange fair and mutual aid.

Instead of one based on compulsion, the social contract of the anarchist is one that aspires for equal liberty. As laid out by the originator of the concept, Herbert Spencer; "Each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other.” Since he also believes that "Man's purpose can be obtained only by the exercise of his faculties", then under this principle, "Every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty to every other man." Anything other than equality of liberty is a double-standard and breaks virtually all universal laws of morality, such as the golden rule.

If the principle of equal liberty were to be applied to land, homesteading, supported by John Locke as the first legitimate means of continual ownership, would no longer be a proper means of gaining ownership today simply because the land has all been seized by the tragedy of the commons and, as such, has left others without the same liberty. These others would not agree to such a situation as it exists today, if there was unclaimed land. Land tenure, like all things, must be subject to the laws of entropy— as I will try to make clear. There were many who saw problems occur when land had been completely claimed. Even John Locke himself, when discussing homesteading claims, saw an issue could arise;

“Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.”

Absolute ownership of land, regardless of its use, will always lead to scarcity, leaving none for those who need it. Those in scarce conditions are likely to act out in crimes of theft and anger. For this reason it is best to apply some form of positive liberty to the situation. Laid out by Herbert Spencer himself, though he’d cringe if he saw his work reinforcing positive rights (though this is a perfect argument in favor of them)— an idea of which he was opposed to— here is the story of the Right to the Use of the Earth, which may help you understand what I am getting at;

"Hallo, you, sir," cries the cosmopolite to some backwoodsman smoking at the door of his shanty, "by what authority do you take possession of these acres that you have cleared, round which you have put up a snake fence and on which you have built this log house?"

"By what authority? I squatted here because there was no one to say nay–because I was as much at liberty to do so as any other man. Besides, now that I have cut down the wood and plowed and cropped the ground, this farm is more mine than yours or anybody's, and I mean to keep it!'

"Ay, so you all say. But I do not yet see how you have substantiated your claim. When you came here you found the land producing trees–sugar maples, perhaps; or maybe it was covered with prairie grass and wild strawberries. Well, instead of these you made it yield wheat, or maize, or tobacco. Now I want to understand how, by exterminating one set of plants and making the soil bear another set in their place, you have constituted yourself lord of this soil for all succeeding time."

"Oh, those natural products which I destroyed were of little or no use; whereas I caused the earth to bring forth things good for food–things that help to give life and happiness."

"Still you have not shown why such a process makes the portion of earth you have so modified yours. What is it that you have done? You have turned over the soil to a few inches in depth with a spade or a plow; you have scattered over this prepared surface a few seeds; and you have gathered the fruits which the sun, rain, and air helped the soil to produce. Just tell me, if you please, by what magic have these acts made you sole owner of that vast mass of matter, having for its base the surface of your estate and for its apex the center of the globe? All of which it appears you would monopolize to yourself and your descendants forever."

"Well, if it isn't mine, whose is it? I have dispossessed nobody. When I crossed the Mississippi yonder I found nothing but the silent woods. If someone else had settled here and made this clearing, he would have had as good a right to the location as I have. I have done nothing but what any other person was at liberty to do had he come before me. While they were unreclaimed, these lands belonged to all men–as much to one as to another–and they are now mine simply because I was the first to discover and improve them."

"You say truly when you say that 'while they were unreclaimed these lands belonged to all men.' And it is my duty to tell you that they belong to all men still, and that your 'improvements,' as you call them, cannot vitiate the claim of all men. You may plow and harrow, and sow and reap; you may turn over the soil as often as you like; but all your manipulations will fail to make that soil yours, which was not yours to begin with. Let me put a case. Suppose now that in the course of your wanderings you come upon an empty house, which in spite of its dilapidated state takes your fancy; suppose that with the intention of making it your abode you expend much time and trouble in repairing it–that you paint and paper and whitewash, and at considerable cost bring it into a habitable state. Suppose further that on some fatal day a stranger is announced who turns out to be the heir to whom this house has been bequeathed, and that this professed heir is prepared with all the necessary proofs of his identity; what becomes of your improvements? Do they give you a valid title to the house? Do they quash the title of the original claimant?"

"No."

"Neither, then, do your pioneering operations give you a valid title to this land. Neither do they quash the title of its original claimants–the human race. The world is God's bequest to mankind. All men are joint heirs to it; you among the number. And because you have taken up your residence on a certain part of it and have subdued, cultivated, beautified that part–improved it, as you say–you are not therefore warranted in appropriating it as entirely private property. At least if you do so, you may at any moment be justly expelled by the lawful owner–Society."

"Well, but surely you would not eject me without making some recompense for the great additional value I have given to this tract, by reducing what was a wilderness into fertile fields. You would not turn me adrift and deprive me of all the benefit of those years of toil it has cost me to bring this spot into its present state."

"Of course not; just as in the case of the house, you would have an equitable title to compensation from the proprietor for repairs and new fittings, so the community cannot justly take possession of this estate without paying for all that you have done to it. This extra worth which your labor has imparted to it is fairly yours; and although you have, without leave, busied yourself in bettering what belongs to the community, yet no doubt the community will duly discharge your claim. But admitting this is quite a different thing from recognizing your right to the land itself. It may be true that you are entitled to compensation for the improvements this enclosure has received at your hands; and at the same time it may be equally true that no act, form, proceeding, or ceremony can make this enclosure your private property."

Here Mr. Spencer assumes that rights to land are given by society because society is the rightful owner. He treats land titles as if they originate in the hands of society and that parts of the commons are given to individuals for the benefit of all. He was onto something.

Humans in horticultural societies found it in their best interest to respect private property as the result of labor. This gave rise to the ownership of land, as respected by individuals in society, due to the efforts of growing food. This was protected by ‘civilized’ laws and contracts and soon the small nomadic and more communal societies became endangered. The states that created the laws regarding the land, with advantages in geography allowed a larger population and thus a larger network of aid and divisions of labor. They dominated the uncivilized societies and they claimed the property of less militarily advanced agricultural ones. This gave rise to feudalism with the civilized state claiming all property by force and allotting it out to eligible individuals within it. In the newly dominated societies the conquerors would respect the labor need for the upkeep of the land only as much as was necessary to keep power. They introduced their advancements in some industries to the people of the conquered nation in order to make them believe, by a more efficient system of output, they were making an equivalent to their labor's effort and that their taxes were justified. Land, by now, has been claimed by societies that are all competing for more.

It is clear now that land ownership by the means of homesteading made sense in the beginning of civilization. It would be the same as saying, ‘I own the air in my lungs.’ Not many would argue against the sentiment, but were one to say that ‘you can not breathe beside me because that air was claimed by me and I own the title’ such a thought would be simply preposterous! There is enough air to go around for everyone, and you can not keep track of the air when it leaves your lungs. It is not scarce enough to bring about a price. Now, were all the air in the world to be bottled and exchanged it would be another story— that is effort! Such an effort must have started as the selling of a much more utilitarian air which brought about a price in the market. Such would be the effort of gardening on the land. To simply walk on it and leave the land as it were gives it no added value, just as breathing my air out gives it no extra use (it actually removes it until plants hit the picture). Were an individual to breathe out air that was of a better quality than when it left their lungs such would be the result of a garden on the land. People must have a right to own the land they occupy and use granted by society, but they must pay society’s toll to retain it.

The problem remains that society in the past, upon issuing right of title to individuals within, neglected the fact that population growth and technological growth would allow the complete human domination of the Earth and that, with rising populations, this leaves a class of people who are destined to sell their labor by using someone else's property.

The tragedy of the commons has created the system of rent from which feudalism developed and our modern system of capitalism comes. Capitalism is not the free exchange of products in a free market, as is commonly understood, capitalism is a system by which the government protects the interest of a certain class of monopolists, of which it is chief. These monopolists are the deciding classes— those who own are unfairly entitled to the labor of others. They are the landlords, bosses, usurers, and politicians and their tools of exploitation are rent, profit, interest, and taxes. All forms of monopoly come from the land because, upon the monopoly of land, owners could pay a bare subsistence level to landless labor for its use and this resulted in an exponential amount of wealth accumulation for the land-owning class. This allowed them to start factories and these factories increased production even more but did not increase the living standards of the laborer and renter as exponentially as of the owner. The ownership and exclusion of land also resulted in natural monopolies due to control of regional resources.

There exists many problems in our society and they all stem from the clutches of usury— interest, taxes, profit, patents, licensing, rent, crime, etc. Under such conditions, we are now suffering from a society that is neurotic. The majority of the population is unhappy with its conditions because wealth has accumulated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. This has affected society on many levels. It has given artificial privilege to a certain class of people in the field of natural selection as well. The neurosis is promoted by the imagery that the classes that arose from feudal privilege use to influence us; the seemed perfection of the people in their class. Religion is another aspect used by the upper class. The spectacle at large works— though maybe not intentionally on the scale that it does— to control the ego of the abiding classes and to convince them that they are not worthy of the same privileges because they are not the same quality of person. The privilege of the deciding class allows them more success, but it is artificial and that needs to be recognized or society will never progress. Their success is not due to a beneficial mutation, it is due to a mistake in the past, and this past could cost us variations of potentially beneficial mutations— the whole reason we have sexual reproduction and markets as a species—if it is not fixed.

If we have established that current property comes from force, and I believe we have, we can make some interesting claims regarding capitalist and socialist views on property. For instance, if we assume that poor people (motivated by self-interest like all of us) would benefit economically from positive rights (the legitimate claim to property currently possessed by others) then we can assume that, to a poor person, an economic perspective that supports expropriation in some form, such as socialism, comes from the narcissistic id— the part of the mind obsessed with self-interest— regardless of its affects on others. Likewise, under the assumption that a rich person loses out on applied positive rights (socialism), such a position must come from the superego, the part of the mind obsessed with pleasing others.

On the other end of the spectrum, if a poor person holds negative rights ideal, and believes in capitalism— the absolute property rights view— it is to their detriment, and such an action must come from the superego of their mind, if they are informed of the outcomes of their choice(does this happen under the condition of informed consent?). Likewise, a rich person who holds absolute negative rights and capitalism dear benefits greatly from such an arrangement and, if they understand the detriment to society because of it, this decision must have been largely based on the id.

We have established that early man had much interest in respecting one another’s land property on a small scale. There was plenty for everyone! It made sense that A didn’t want person B to eat from person C’s garden, when asked for support; and that D,E,F, and G said C could claim that land privately (assuming person B could just as well put the work in it took to start such a garden). No one thought ahead to a point when their new abundance in the Fertile Crescent would fill it with populations now in need of land, and allow them to conquer other people and enslave them. Thanks to the tragedy of the commons, that is exactly what happened when the area boomed into the Cradle of Civilization, and due to the economy that developed out of the new surplus, allowed more intricate systems of division of labor and power over other societies.

We have discussed selfishness and how every human is inherently selfish, as well as compassionate, due to the will of their genes, and how eusociality in animals is due to genetic similarity, far beyond that exhibited by humans. This leaves us with a property arrangement that is based as largely on the id as on the superego, if not more so. Thus, we can generally strike rich socialist out of the equation, or at least put them on the outer margins of the curve, as well as poor capitalist. This, of course, is not always the case on an individual basis— some rich people have poor family they care about and are upset about some of the issues they are facing. Some poor people have some rich family and would be upset if they lost their mansions to absolute strangers. Some just have that much desire to help. Some are just misinformed. Nonetheless, personal problems tend to outweigh those of others, even family— and that brings me to my next point…

There are more poor people than there are rich people. Even if someone has some rich family members, they are likely to have more poor family members. If people are selfish, and there are more poor people, it’s just a matter of time and education before something happens for the poor, considering one believes that the working poor can be competent human beings, as I tend to do.

According to the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University, in the year 2000, the richest 1% of adults owned 40% of global assets and the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth.

We’re not talking about a standard of wealth that people generally have but small numbers deviate from, we’re talking about 50% of the population owning 1% of world’s wealth. That’s a big problem! That’s not just some people being lazy and others being achievers, there’s an unfair advantage in this game.

The positive side to this is that since there are more poor people than rich people, and since we generally base our property rights on our id, we will inevitably come to respect more positive rights in property— it is the self-interested move of the masses.

What remains important to the anarchist is that collective right and equal liberty to use the Earth does not mean control of it through the means of involuntary government or coercion of persons. Thus Mutualists prefer a model of land ownership that is based upon occupancy and use. This needs further definition, however. For instance, how long would a house have to be left for it to become abandoned under usufruct conditions? Would a vacation allow squatters to take over?

With land itself, improved or not, as an essential need for life, carrying value as a scarce good due to population levels, members must form societies voluntarily to protect their property. This would make a statement about who is occupying and using land, would it not? These societies must demand their members' contribution for protecting and excluding others from the use of their land (and, in an anarchist society, breaking a contract and lying). After all, society itself is what grants legitimacy of private property through its protection. This is the very nature of society— mutual protection of interests. This also means, biologically speaking, participating in mutual protection of our genetic diversity. A society like this would charge a dues or service fee based on the land’s cost of protection— equal to its economic rent— and redistribute the surplus funds equally among its members through dividends, allowing any individual the money to pay for land to subsist themselves, or access to freely homestead the commons. Payments will act as mechanisms to diffuse crime and to prove one’s occupancy and use, through the assertion of united force if necessary. This is unfortunate but necessary because, as stated by Max Stirner in earlier paragraphs, property is only legitimate so far as it is recognized as such by others.

The individual must have an inalienable right granted to leave such a society if it is to be non-coercive in contract. Without any society at all, however, an individual risks non-protection against existing societies, except by their own self-regulation (such as if a society extends its rights of non-violence to non-members). If they do not join a society they will thus live in competition with all of them and, by the natural laws of domination, will likely perish by a lack of mutual aid and support if they decide to challenge the rules of established societies. This is not an ideal situation, but it’s a fact of nature that society is needed for human survival. This is a social and ecological pressure. It’s also true that members do not always live by their word. Even if societies extended their rights to non-members in policy (expressed consent), as they should, there is no way to ensure entirely that individuals or small teams would not try to raid the extreme individualist (tacit consent). This fact, in itself, can be less than ideal. We must know our limits, but always try to expand them. Ideally, the principle of non-aggression will be applied to ‘foreign relations’— non-members of the society— as to protect the freedom to be without association.

The difference between having to pay for one’s own land protection and having government do it is immense. In the latter every land owner is paying for the protection of a rich person’s land and, as such, is taking on the costs of that protection even when it is not in their own self interest. In an authoritarian system the community can not expropriate land that has been hoarded. In the former, however, when property relies on the respect of others, the price of its protection is much higher for those with more property. If there are those without property who desire it themselves, surely over time they will form an association to make this happen and, just as workers have formed associations aimed at expropriating the means of production, they will expropriate the homes of their landlords who have extracted enough rent to pay for their home many times over, but being protected by the monopoly of government, never have to release the title to their home even when its cost of production and maintenance has been reached. With expropriation and the application of occupancy and use title to land a new distribution of wealth will bring the price of housing back to equilibrium; at its expected cost of manufacture and maintenance, through market competition and bilateral agreement.

COST

The sovereignty of the individual is an idea presented by John Locke which, if institutions were to truly build upon it by principle, would ensure a bilateral and voluntary exchange. The principle may be stated; "Every man has a property in his own person."

Josiah Warren later expanded on the idea and influenced John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer in adapting it;

“Liberty, then, is the sovereignty of the individual, and never shall man know liberty until each and every individual is acknowledged to be the only legitimate sovereign of his or her person, time, and property, each living and acting at his own cost; and not until we live in a society where each can exercise his right of sovereignty at all times without clashing with or violating that of others.”

So it remains that if all individuals are sovereign all must respect the sovereignty of another. In conditions where this is so, most transactions will tend to be made based on voluntary exchange between buyers and sellers, not considering less common means of exchange such as gifts, gambling, and robbery. As Benjamin Tucker points out in his reply to an editor of the New York Truth;

“Somebody gets the surplus wealth that labor produces and does not consume. Who is the Somebody?”

He goes on to analyze,

“What are the ways by which men gain possession of property? Not many. Let us name them: work, gift, discovery, gaming, the various forms of illegal robbery by force or fraud, usury. Can men obtain wealth by any other than one or more of these methods? Clearly, no. Whoever the Somebody may be, then, he must accumulate his riches in one of these ways. We will find him by the process of elimination.

Is the Somebody the laborer? No; at least not as laborer; otherwise the question were absurd. Its premises exclude him. He gains a bare subsistence by his work; no more. We are searching for his surplus product. He has it not.

Is the Somebody the beggar, the invalid, the cripple, the discoverer, the gambler, the highway robber, the burglar, the defaulter, the pickpocket, or the common swindler? None of these, to any extent worth mentioning. The aggregate of wealth absorbed by these classes of our population compared with the vast mass produced is a mere drop in the ocean, unworthy of consideration in studying a fundamental problem of political economy. These people get some wealth, it is true; enough, probably for their own purposes: but labor can spare them the whole of it, and never know the difference.

Then we have found him. Only the usurer remaining, he must be the Somebody whom we are looking for; he, and none other. But who is the usurer, and whence comes his power? There are three forms of usury; interest on money, rent of land and houses, and profit in exchange. Whoever is in receipt of any of these is a usurer. And who is not? Scarcely any one. The banker is a usurer; the manufacturer is a usurer; the merchant is a usurer; the landlord is a usurer; and the workingman who puts his savings, if he has any, out at interest, or takes rent for his house or lot, if he owns one, or exchanges his labor for more than an equivalent, - he too is a usurer. The sin of usury is one under which all are concluded, and for which all are responsible. But all do not benefit by it. The vast majority suffer. Only the chief usurers accumulate: in agricultural and thickly-settled countries, the landlords; in industrial and commercial countries, the bankers. Those are the Somebodies who swallow up the surplus wealth.

And where do the Somebodies get their power? From monopoly. Here, as usual, the State is the chief of sinners. Usury rests on two great monopolies; the monopoly of land and the monopoly of credit. Were it not for these, it would disappear. Ground-rent exists only because the State stands by to collect it and to protect land-titles rooted in force or fraud. Otherwise the land would be free to all, and no one could control more than he used. Interest and house-rent exist only because the State grants to a certain class of individuals and corporations the exclusive privilege of using its credit and theirs as a basis for the issuance of circulating currency. Otherwise credit would be free to all, and money, brought under the law of competition, would be issued at cost. Interest and rent gone, competition would leave little or no chance for profit in exchange except in business protected by tariff or patent laws. And there again the State has but to step aside to cause the last vestige of usury to disappear.

The usurer is the Somebody, and the State is his protector. Usury is the serpent gnawing at labor's vitals, and only liberty can detach and kill it. Give laborers their liberty, and they will keep their wealth. As for the Somebody, he, stripped of his power to steal, must either join their ranks or starve.”

To Benjamin Tucker it was very clear; laborers don’t get the full return on their labor that was deserved and this was due to those who take this return through interest, profit, and rent.

Tucker followed a principle coined by Josiah Warren, who felt that “Cost [should be] the limit of price.” He probably borrowed the principle from Adam Smith who said,

"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."

More obviously, Tucker mirrors Smith’s statements when he says, “The natural wage of labor is its product.” Smith spoke of basically the same thing many years prior when saying;

“The produce of labor constitutes the natural recompense or wages of labor. In that original state of things which precedes both the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labor belongs to the laborer. He has neither landlord nor master to share with him.”

Josiah Warren, after some failed attempts to make time the only measurement of value, further defined what cost meant. He stated that it was the time used in the good or service plus the repugnance involved in providing it. Further explained he defines it as

“[…]the endurance of whatever is disagreeable.[…] Fatigue of mind or body is cost. Responsibility which causes anxiety is cost. To have our time or our attention taken up against our preferences—to make a sacrifice of any kind—a feeling of mortification—painful suspense—fear—suffering or enduring anything against our inclinations, is here considered cost.”

Many people leave out the thought of toil, disgust, and otherwise dislike for duties as an economic cost, which is why Warren’s point is so necessary. Tucker had this to say about the principle;

“From Smith's principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men [Josiah Warren, Pierre Proudhon, and Karl Marx] made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege.”

Francis Dashwood Tandy further explained cost the limit of price, the absence of profit, in a way that works with modern utility theories of value;

“By profit is usually meant, the difference between the price which a merchant pays for goods, and the price at which he sells them. But this is not a sufficiently accurate definition for economic purposes. Such profit is composed largely of rent, interest, taxes, wages and the necessary expenses of business. Economically speaking, profit is that which is left between the cost and the price, after the factors above mentioned have been deducted. Much of this is often due to some special privilege, such as the existence of a protective tariff, patent, copyright, or other similar form of monopoly. But it depends principally upon the existence of rent and interest. With the elimination of these various factors, the cost of acquisition will depend solely upon the labor value. Free competition will then force the price down to the actual labor value, making cost and price equal.

It should be noted that the labor value does not necessarily mean the actual amount of labor embodied in the identical article, but the amount [and quality] of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility.”

This is an important understanding when it comes to application of the labor theory of value. Not all labor has value to others. Labor may have value for its owner without having value for the rest of society. Such labor does not deserve exchange for its own sake, but leaves the original owner with their original product.

If every member of society had equal access to use their own land and credit scarcely anyone could charge rent for the use of their capital because there would no longer be a monopoly of the resources. This would bring prices back down to cost, and thus access to land and credit is the solution to most of our economic problems today, allowing any healthy individual to sustain themselves, as well as those they may love whom are unable to be self-reliant.

In a system where people are relatively equal in economic status relative equality in political status will follow, and vice versa. Generally people do not like being bossed about and commanded to do things. If given a choice most people would choose self-direction over direction by another, whom they have not chosen, if it gave them the same opportunity for economic success. The equal access to land and credit will be the vehicle for this opportunity. People who have property are less likely to take abuse from others just because of theirs.

With everyone being an owner of capital it would be impossible to keep a monopoly on money and its issue will be brought down to cost through competition. One way this can be done is through the mutual credit system whereby each member of a bank purchases a graduated policy for interest-free credit, or through a pan-commodity currency. The mutual credit system essentially makes service the basis of redemption whereas a pan-commodity currency would hold products as its basis. Mutual credit exists where a member is printed money on the spot and owes that money back to the bank without interest. The value in this money is the debt owed by the participants, which can only be paid by the same money, and which must be paid back before being issued graduated credit, giving them incentive to work to collect it from others to pay back their debt. A pan-commodity scrip would entail the confederation of industrial and agricultural producers and agreement on terms by which a spot price would be issued for products, with the scrip having redemption value with the commodity bank, and the basis being the commodities that are sold to the bank.

As laid out by the inspiring Mutualist, Francis Dashwood Tandy, the basis of money has been unnecessarily monopolized;

“From these remarks it will be seen that a standard of value and a basis of value are two different things. With commodity money of these two separate functions are performed by commodity of which the money is made. But this is not so of credit money. […]

There is no reason why any or all may not be used as a basis of value. But it would inconvenient, though by no means impossible, to have several standards. People get accustomed to values by a certain standard and it would be a small amount of annoyance to reckon in accordance with any other. An Englishman who is accustomed to reckoning values in pounds shillings and pence finds it a little inconvenient to reckon in rupees until he gets used to it. But the difficulty of measuring different money by different standards is not very great when it is known by what standard each piece is measured. This is practically done every day in all business houses that have transactions with foreign countries.”

And,

“There is no reason why Mutual Bank notes may not be measured by any standard whatsoever. The notes may read, ‘This note will be received by the members of the First Mutual Bank in payment of all debts due to them to the value of 100 grains of gold,’ or ‘to the extent of eight bushels of wheat,’ or ‘to the extent of ten pounds of steel,’ or to the extend of any certain amount of any given commodity.”

When anything is used as the sole basis of money it causes problems. This is one of the foundations of Mutualist economics. When credit is faced with monopoly due to the monopoly on the basis of money, the cost of its use rises and with it raises interest rates that end up making slaves of free laborers.

Clarence Lee Swartz, makes a point about the state of credit in his time;

“The giving of credit is usually thought of as the lending of something by a rich man, the creditor, to a poor man, the debtor. Who could possibly imagine the poor man to be the creditor? And yet, every workman is the creditor of his employer, for a limited weekly period at least, until he gets his pay check. Teachers and other salaried people have to work a whole month before receiving payment. During that time they are the creditors of their employers. But these are cases of enforced credit, while this inquiry is concerned with voluntary credit only.

When a workman is out of employment, which happens periodically in the building trades, his enforced idleness is a loss to himself and to the community. If the services of the idle men of the community could be exchanged, all this loss could be turned into gain. Workmen always manage somehow to live through limited periods of enforced idleness; it would not make it any harder for them if they gave service without immediate compensation in cash during such periods.”

He illustrates his theory with a story for the reader,

“Suppose Jones, who is a carpenter, wants to build a house. He has the plans, owns a lot and has fifteen hundred dollars in cash, with which to pay for his material, but no money to pay for labor. Suppose, further, that thirty of his fellow workmen, belonging to the various building trades, were idle and were willing to give him a week each of their idle time, which would be enough to build the house, and that they also were willing to wait for their compensation until they, in turn, should be in need of his help, when he should be idle. The pay to which they would be entitled would be evidenced by thirty promissory notes of (for instance) fifty dollars each, which Jones would redeem in services from time to time.”

He then reflects upon his story,

“Here we have an illustration of idle man giving credit by converting their time, which would otherwise be lost, into wealth, for out of the idle time of these thirty men thirty houses could be built, each man giving one week to the construction of each house. The guaranteeing of the promissory notes could be done by the organizations to which the men belonged, or they could be secured by mortgage lien on the house. This theoretical case could be worked out in practice with very little difficulty, if these men understood what mutual credit could do for them. The moral of the story is that there is no one in the community so poor that he cannot give credit, for whoever gives goods or services to another, before receiving their equivalent in similar goods or services in return, is giving credit.

Once the Mutual Bank is operating, money will be available practically without interest to any responsible producer, so that his independence will no longer depend upon the whim of the usurer, but upon his determination and his ability in his line of work. There will be big factories and small shops, and the demand for wage labor will be greater than the supply, with the result that wages will soar until they approach the full value of the work done.

Due to the elimination of interest, rent, and privileged profits, under Mutualism the cost of commodities will be much lower and money therefore will have more buying power, in addition to wages being higher.

Is this not a condition worth working for?”

There are some who will argue the necessity of interest. They will say that interest helps people and that there needs to be a mechanism to encourage lending to those in need. I agree, but they will go on to argue that interest is such a mechanism. This is where I am inclined to part from their reasoning, but I consider interest the price of a loan in a monopoly market, not under normal opportunity costs.

I pose the reader an ethical question: How do you feel about slavery? What if it is voluntary? Say that upon your wandering you come beside a beautiful cliff that follows a clear blue river. You notice some birds of prey nesting on the cliff side, and amazed by their magnificence, you step out further, though not to any point that you feel is unsafe. Yet, to your horror, the turf below slips from under you as the dirt below crumbles and falls to the bank of the river. You drop but catch yourself on the root of a tree. You are unsure if you can make it up and you scream for help. The only person around hears your call and finds you below. Seeing your trouble, they present you with an ultimatum; sign a voluntary slave contract and receive help, or do not do so and fall to your death.

This presents much dilemma. Of course you are going to take the deal, though you may hope to get out of the contract somehow. Interest on money presents itself with the same issue of extortion.

Yes, loans help people; people need loans in order to make large investments. Interest, however, is detrimental in the same way the slave contract is. Both interest and the voluntary slave contract in the above scenario rest on the same values— that it is okay to take advantage of people and take more from them than you are giving in return. You don’t have to take the help off of the cliff. You have the option to die. You don’t have to have a car or a home, you can just die young and poor instead. If you take the stranger’s hand up off the cliff— the loan— however, you will live longer, although you will be exploited in doing so.

In the above scenario, the loan the man is offering you is the help to get back on solid ground. The interest is any of your slavery after the point of returning the exact amount of cost it took on his part to help. The difference is the condition under which the help was received. If there were many people around someone would offer help without a slave contract, but because he is the only one around he can take advantage and demand a price (slavery) above cost (helping). Just the same, a bank is maintained as the only help for loans, and common working people are not permitted to print their own money, making them dependent on the banks despite the interest. Common people are hanging off of a cliff. When someone offers them help— even a pyramid scheme— they will take it regardless of the cost, because they don’t know when the next offer will be around. The man on the cliff has a monopoly on the help because he is the only one around, and so he can charge whatever he wants for his help, including your servitude. The money lenders hold a monopoly on the basis of money, and make very similar demands.

The abiding classes can, and do, use all kinds of loans to better their situation, but in so doing are making themselves slaves to the deciding classes who offer them money at interest. Interest is unearned income. Receiving income from another’s labor is slavery. An individual deserves the return of his or her lent property in the exact same condition and of the exact same value it would have been in if it would have otherwise not been lent, no more, no less. The man who saves you from a cliff deserves a favor in return of equal cost to you, but no more, and certainly not your perpetual servitude.

In order to combat the inflation and deflation associated with money that allows this sort of economic extortion, it is necessary for currency— the medium of exchange— to be cycled in the economy and kept from being hoarded. This is as important as keeping its basis from monopolization. If money is supposed to represent labor value it must be taken into mind that some labor value is lost over time. Everything but money has entropy. A farmer, for instance, must sell his produce before it goes bad, whereas a carpenter may create a surplus of furniture and sell it as it is demanded, but only if he or she keeps up with the style of the day. Needless to say, not all of his furniture in his or her collection will bring the price he or she had hoped to acquire.

The basis for the argument for demurrage on money can be seen in Silvio Gesell’s classic A Story of Robinson Crusoe, provided for you below;

“To introduce the theory of interest here expounded, and to facilitate the removal of old prejudices, which are nowhere stronger than in connection with the subject of interest, I shall begin with a story of Robinson Crusoe.

Robinson Crusoe, as is well known, built his house, from motives of health, on the south side of the mountain, whereas his crops grew on the damp but fruitful northern slopes. He was therefore obliged to carry his harvests over the mountain. To eliminate this labor he decided to construct a canal around the mountain. The time required for this enterprise which, to avoid silting, would have to be continued without interruption, he estimated at three years. He had therefore to lay in provisions for three years.

He slaughtered some pigs and cured their flesh with salt; he filled a deep trench with wheat, covering it carefully with earth. He tanned a dozen buckskins for suits and nailed them up in a chest, enclosing also the stink-glands of a skunk as a precaution against moths.

In short, he provided amply and, as he thought, wisely, for the coming three years.

As he sat calculating for the last time whether his "capital" was sufficient for the projected undertaking, he was startled by the approach of a stranger, obviously the survivor of a shipwreck.

"Hallo, Crusoe!" shouted the stranger as he approached, "my ship has gone down, but I like your island and intend to settle here. Will you help me with some provisions until I have brought a field into cultivation and harvested my first crops?"

At these words Crusoe’s thoughts flew from his provisions to the possibility of interest and the attractions of life as a gentleman of independent means. He hastened to answer "yes".

" That’s splendid!" replied the stranger, "but I must say at once that I shall pay no interest. I would prefer to keep myself alive by hunting and fishing, for my religion forbids me to pay, or to receive, interest."

Robinson Crusoe: An admirable religion! But from what motive do you expect me to advance you provisions from my stores if you pay me no interest?

Stranger: From pure egoism, my dear fellow, from your self-interest rightly understood. Because you gain, and gain enormously.

R.C.: That, stranger you have to prove. I confess that I can see no advantage in lending you my provisions free of interest.

S: I shall prove it in black and white, and if you can follow my proof, you will agree to a loan without interest, and thank me into the bargain. I need, first of all, clothes, for, as you can see, I am naked. Have you a supply of clothes?

R.C.: That chest is packed with buckskin suits.

S: My dear Crusoe! I had more respect for your intelligence. Just fancy nailing up clothes for three years in a chest – buckskins, the favorite diet of moths! And buckskins must be kept aired and rubbed with grease, otherwise they become hard and brittle.

R.C.: That is true, but I have no choice in the matter. They would be no safer in my clothes-cupboard – less safe, indeed, for it is infested by rats and mice as well as by moths.

S: The mice will get them in any case. Look how they have already started to gnaw their way in!

R.C.: Confound the brutes! I am helpless against them.

S: What! A human being helpless against mice! I will show you how to protect yourself against rats and mice and moths, against thieves and brittleness, dust and mildew. Lend me these clothes for one, two or three years and I agree to make you new clothes as soon as you require them. You will receive as many suits as you have lent me, and the new suits will be far superior to those you would have taken from this chest. Nor

will you regret the absence of the particular perfume you have employed! Do you agree?

R.C.: Yes, stranger, I agree to lend you the chest of clothes; I see that, in this case, the loan, even without interest, is to my advantage.

S: Now show me your wheat; I need some for bread and seed.

R.C.: It is buried in this mound.

S: Wheat buried for three years! What about mildew and beetles?

R.C.: I have thought of them and considered every other possibility, but this is the best I can do.

S: Just bend down a moment. Observe this beetle crawling on the surface of the mound. Note the garbage and the spreading patch of mildew. It is high time to take out and air the wheat.

R.C.: This capital will be my ruin! If I only could find some method of protecting myself against the thousand destructive forces of nature!

S: Let me tell you, Crusoe, how we manage at home. We build a dry and airy shed and shake out the wheat on the boarded floor. Every three weeks the whole mass is turned over with wooden shovels. We also keep a number of cats; we set mouse-traps and insure against fire. In

this way we keep the annual depreciation down to 10 per cent.

R.C.: But the labor and expense!

S: Exactly You shrink from the labor and expense. In that case you have another course. Lend me your wheat and I shall replace it, pound for pound, sack for sack, with fresh wheat from my harvest. You thus save the labor of building a shed and turning over the wheat; you need feed no cats, you avoid the loss of weight, and instead of mouldy rubbish you will have fresh, nutritious wheat.

R.C.: With all my heart I accept your proposal.

S: That is, you will lend me your wheat free of interest?

R.C.: Certainly; without interest and with my best thanks.

S: But I can only use part of the wheat, I do not need it all.

R.C.:Suppose I give you the whole store with the understanding that for every ten sacks lent you give me back nine sacks?

S: I must decline your offer, for it would mean interest – not indeed positive, but negative interest. The receiver, not the giver of the loan, would be a capitalist, and my religion does not permit usury; even negative interest is forbidden.

I propose therefore the following agreement. Entrust me with the supervision of your wheat, the construction of the shed, and whatever else is necessary. In return you can pay me, annually, from every ten sacks two sacks as wages.

R.C.: It makes no difference to me whether your service comes under the heading of usury or of labor. The agreement is, then, that I give you ten sacks and that you give me back eight sacks?

S: But I need other articles, a plough, a cart and tools. Do you consent to lend them, also, without interest? I promise to return everything in perfect order, a new spade for a new spade, a new, unrusted, chain for a new chain, and so forth.

R.C.: Of course I consent. All I have at present from my stores is work. Lately the river overflowed and flooded the shed, covering everything with mud. Then a storm blew off the roof and everything was damaged by rain. Now we have drought, and the wind is blowing in sand and dust. Rust, decay, breakage, drought, light, darkness, dry-rot, ants, keep up a never-ending attack. We can congratulate ourselves here upon having , at least, no thieves and incendiaries. I am delighted that, by means of a loan, I can now store my belongings without expense, labor, loss or vexation, until I need them later.

S: That is, you now see the advantage you gain by lending me your provisions free of interest?

R.C.: Of course I do. But the question now occurs

to me, why do similar stores of provisions at home bring their possessors interest?

S: The explanation lies in money which is there the medium of such transactions.

R.C.: What? The cause of interest lies in money? That is impossible, for listen to what Marx says of money and interest: "Work is the source of interest (surplus-value). Interest, which converts money into capital, cannot be derived from money. If it is true that money is a medium of exchange, then its function is merely to pay the price of the goods which it purchases. If it thus remains unchanged it cannot increase in value. Surplus value (interest) must therefore be derived from the goods purchased which are sold at an increase of price. This change can neither occur at the time of purchase not at the time of sale, for on these occasions equivalents are exchanged. The only remaining hypothesis is, therefore, that the change happens through the use of the goods after their purchase and before their sale." (Marx. Capital, chap. VI).

S: How long have you been on this island?

R.C.: Thirty years.

S: I thought so! You still appeal to the theory of value. My dear Sir, that theory is dead and buried. At the present day it has no representatives.
R.C.: What? You assert that Marx’s theory of interest is dead and buried? Even if no one else

represents it – I represent it!

S: Well then, represent it not only in theory but also in practice – if you wish, in relation to me! I hereby break off the bargain we have just made. From their nature and destination your goods are the purest form of what is usually called capital. I challenge you to take up the position of a capitalist towards me. I need your stuff. No worker ever appeared before a capitalist as naked as I stand before you. Never has there been so clear an illustration of the relation between the owner of capital and the individual in need of capital. And now make the attempt to exact interest! Shall we begin our bargaining again from the beginning?

R.C.: Surrender! Rats, moths and rust have broken my power as a capitalist. But tell me, what is your explanation of interest?

S: The explanation is simple enough. If there were a monetary system on this island and I , as a shipwrecked traveller, needed a loan, I would have to apply to a money –lender for money to buy things which you have just lent me without interest. But a money-lender has not to worry about rats, moths, rust and roof-repairing, so I could not have taken up the position towards him that I have taken up towards you. The loss inseparable from the ownership of goods (there is the dog running off with one of your – or rather – my buckskins!) is borne, not by moneylenders, but by those who have to store the goods. The money-lender is free from such cares and is

unmoved by the ingenious arguments which found the joints in your armour. You did not nail up your chest of buckskins when I refused to pay interest; the nature of your capital made you willing to continue the negotiations. Not so the money-capitalist; he would bang the door of his strong-room before my face if I announced that I would pay no interest. Yet I do not need the money itself, I only need money to buy buckskins. The buckskins you give me without interest: but upon the money to buy buckskins I must pay interest!

R.C.: Then the cause of interest is to be sought in money? And Marx is wrong?

S: Of course Marx is wrong. He under-estimated the importance of money, the nervous system of economic life, so it is not surprising that he went wrong over other things of fundamental importance. Like all his disciples he made the mistake of excluding money form the scope of his inquiry. He was fascinated by the shining metal disks, otherwise he could never have used the following words: "Gold and silver are not by nature money, but money is by nature gold and silver, witness the coincidence of their natural properties with its functions".

R.C.: Practice certainly does not agree with Marx’s theory – that has been clearly proved by our negotiations. Money is for Marx only a medium of exchange; but money does more, it seems, than "merely pay the price of the goods it purchases". When the borrower refuses to pay

interest, the banker can bang the door of his safe without experiencing any of the cares which beset the owner of goods (capital) – that is the root of the matter.

S: Rats, moths and rust are powerful logicians! A single hour of economic practice has taught you more than years of study in the text-books.”

As you can see, the devaluation of labor needs to be noticed or the basis of money will be monopolized. This can be done by giving the money demurrage— a use fee— which is set by the bank, paid on equal terms between all members, and distributed back equally from the pot. This will encourage the spending and lending of money at no interest cost because, by paying someone for a service before the demurrage fee arises, a person is passing on the loss of value associated with the money and gains simply by not losing. In a system like this the only way to save money would be by lending it to others for a full repayment in the future.

What would follow the equal access to credit and money would be a society dominated by cooperative and mutual associations, including the banks themselves.

ORGANIZATION

Mutual Banking is an important aspect for an economy without usury, as it represents a way of doing away with interest, through competition and bilateralism, in a market that demands economies of scale and scope. Mutual banking serves the purpose of coopetition. This can be seen in the way the banks are organized, at least in true mutuals, with consumers having control of the policy and thus having a vote in democratic assemblies. If the banks are directly-democratic (as they should be) the mutualization (creation of bilateral contract between a monopoly and a monopsony), allows for open exchange about expenses between the buyer and the seller. This ensures that any surplus of the bank is redirected to its policy-holders by way of dividends at the end of a particular period. With this method prices can be brought back down to cost through transparency (in a market that is not restricted from this method of organization). Because bargaining power reaches equilibrium between the monopsony— demanding the lowest prices— and the monopoly— demanding the highest— it will eventually settle on an agreement based on the cost, just as it does in a competitive market. Other services provided by monopolies should and must be organized along the same lines if a price is truly to be established upon its costs. A bilateral monopoly occurs when there is both a monopoly and a monopsony present in a market. Mutual organizations that are truly democratic have the characteristics of both in one organization.

Under the conditions of mutual banking, cooperative ownership is expected to grow exponentially. In a cooperative there is likely to be a single or a few entrepreneurs who start it. In the following example I will use a single individual;

This example individual, ‘A’, worked on a business plan and took a credit loan from their mutual bank and/or sought out private investors to start up a business. After paying the loan off the business takes off and the individual needs more help. He or she can try to employ someone, but free access to credit makes labor scarce and it is easier to make someone help manage the business if they are going to be paid a competitive wage anyway. Instead, due to the demand of labor in the market, A opens up to cooperatizing the business.

In a cooperative all shares are equal. The original owner of the business expects compensation for all of the past work that gives the business current value and asks for the highest price they can for the 50% share sold to the new partner in the firm. What they are selling is the idea, the policies, the established networks, the property, and much more— not just the actual physical property, but all of the work that went into the business. If their price is too high to find a partner they will have to lower it, but when they find a partner they sell half of the business to them. This also gives the new partner half of the decision-making power and decisions must be made according to a contract. Contracts should include in them the policy for title-transfer in case the contract is not kept up with. It is probably best to agree upon a third-party contract mediator and enforcer in case of dispute.

The two partners are now gaining more business than they can handle by themselves and now want to sell shares to two more members. This gives each member 25% of the business including 25% of its costs, income, and responsibilities.

In the event that a member is expelled the member, rightful owner of 25% of the business, is paid his share of the business according to the contract at the time of association. This leaves each of the existing members 33.34% of the business.

In a cooperative association, decisions must be made. There are many ways to make decisions as a group, as shown by the opposing views of social contracts. You can establish a supreme authority, a representative, or make decisions as a collective. It is believed that, given the choice, people would rather make important decisions as a group than be dominated by a minority, if they can overcome organizational hurdles (but are quick to vote in favor of delegation for less important decisions). Such is the basis for any argument for freedom and democracy. One way they can make decisions democratically is when a cooperative is formed and the members assemble to make decisions. In a group large enough that casual conversation hinders the group (maybe because of outside influence such as time restraint), it is important to be organized. To do this there are duties which need to be performed by the group. The group can elect individuals to fill these roles, have elected individuals appoint them, or run a lottery for them. What is important is that the individuals do their job, which is not to make decisions for the group, but to enact the group’s decisions. The two positions which will be more or less consistent throughout any meeting are the secretary and the stack-taker. The secretary is responsible for recording the motions passed by the group and the stack-taker is responsible for keeping track of who is in line to speak.

Example: Someone has an idea that may be beneficial for the group. They tell the stack-taker. Meanwhile there is a second and third idea making their way to the stack-taker. The stack-keeper puts the first idea on stack (in line) and then the others in the order they arrive and in relevance to each other. The stack-keeper tells the first to take the floor. He or she does so and proposes a motion to the group. The secretary reads their understanding of the motion back to the group. Everyone votes. The secretary records the vote and informs the group of the decision. This can happen outside of assemblies in larger groups as well through the use of mail-in motions to the secretary for the purpose of sending referendums to the membership at large.

Consensus is a form of direct democracy that is characterized by the ability of a single individual to block a motion. The use of consensus restricts the function of the group only to actions which benefit every individual involved. For that reason, consensus on a federal level can not run the economy. Large associations, as large as nations, may run on consensus, but it impedes coercive federalism and is best maintained by supplementary systems of subsidiarity. A tactic for larger participatory assemblies includes the spokes-council.

Consensus works best in freely associated groups of individuals within a market setting. This ensures liberty through proper divisions of power. Subsidiarity is an organizing principle which states that decisions should be placed in the hands of the lowest level possible informed decision-maker and it explains properly scaled divisions of power. It is a way of inhibiting diseconomies of scale. Subsidiarity comes naturally with consensus-based decisions in a free market setting, due to the process’s check on coercive federalism.

The absence the cost-principle’s application has resulted in environmental devastation across the planet and scarcity in human homes. This is largely due to restrictions on the economy that don't allow new solutions to easily take the place of old problems.

The monopoly of industry has made it a monopsony in the labor market. The Subsistence Theory of Wages, also known as the Iron Law of Wages, states that the payment of labor tends toward keeping the population of workers constant or at a bare subsistence rate. A subsistence rate, or enforced standard of living, is a fluctuating matter, considering the conditions around the world. A worker in England, for example, has very different standards to live by than a worker in Zimbabwe. There are all kinds of things to take into mind such as the minimum wage set in a country, its housing codes and other living standards, as well as its monetary rate of exchange. The workers all owe different tribute to the privileged classes affecting them in the various forms of usury such as taxes, interest, profit, rent, etc. All of these have been brought artificially into existence through the monopoly of land. Thus capital and technology have also been controlled by the few monopolists. This has created a lot of unnecessary waste of labor and product.

Instead of production, manufacture, and distribution taking place in local markets, economies of scale are artificially created by government subsidies, patents, and licensing laws. This greatly affects the comparative advantage between individuals and gives artificial specialization to a monopolist instead of to entrepreneurs, who, in many cases, could open up more efficient and sustainable alternatives by reducing costs. The distorted comparative advantage affects the opportunity costs of workers at home as well.

Instead of presenting new ideas into the market, as soon as a fresh generation enters, a select few are given the privilege and the rest must find outside employment in the old ones. Even in privileged countries the working classes must drive to work, even in price-taker markets where, if credit were freed, labor would be taking place in the homes and neighborhoods of the entrepreneurs supplying the demand. As it is today, it remains cheaper to throw things away and buy new than to recycle them. This makes no economic sense without privilege. In the case of metals, new material must be mined across the world to supply the demand in privileged countries that have thrown a lot of the old metal in a landfill or let it rust and deteriorate in a junk pile. Mining is a lot more effort than recycling metal.

One could argue, and has argued, that recycling can be more wasteful than new production. This is true in some cases, but it is most commonly due to the culture we are in. Instead of such waste, in a free market, used metal would carry such a price that products themselves would be manufactured to be easily dismantled and this would reduce much of that concern. Just as well, all of the waste due to diseconomies of scale, such as transportation costs, would adjust to meet the closest cost to bare minimum as is possible. The market would be flooded with ways to cut costs if we let it, and entrepreneurs would make it so.

It should cost money to get rid of something on land that is not one’s own, but for large corporations it doesn’t. Anything outside of payment for the disposal of waste is the externalization of costs onto someone else. If they are unable to externalize their costs onto others people will think more about the waste they are creating.

Entrepreneurs are people who have a new idea for society. As such, a new idea for a market is like a mutation— it has never been tried. If it works it will be passed on to the rest of society and if it fails it will be selected out. It is a system of flexibility of choice ever evolving and changing just as life does in biology. Entrepreneurs are the main reason to keep a market economy because they are the variations in society that arise to meet the new obstacles that humans continually face in an ever-evolving environment. Anyone can be an entrepreneur by starting an association or by putting new ideas forward within one.

Entrepreneurs have the ability to work together in an association as a cooperative, but their cooperatives also have that same ability in a confederation. Confederations allow for large economies of scale when it comes to solidarity and mutual aid. In a way a confederation can place a restriction on a market while keeping it free and voluntary, but only if it is a consensus-based institution, because only a consensus-based institution truly respects individual property rights. As long as all the participants in a free market agree on a restriction, it is a voluntary decision over one's own property and a right given or denounced by contract. Such a confederation would naturally highly respect the values of subsidiarity by having departments dealing with many different subsections of the confederation.

It seems that humans are moving from a starting point of negative rights and are compelled slowly toward positive rights, meaning we are moving from individualism to collective behavior. This relationship is due to similarity between the components; people are not so different after all.. Language has allowed for people to get on the same page in regards to ethics and this same page allows more similarity between individuals than existed before because they can appeal to one another's reason. Furthermore, though they have these similarities, they still operate as independent agents and independent agents will always have conflict due to scarcity, it’s a matter of whether to compromise, collaborate, compete, accommodate, or avoid the conflict that is the issue at hand.

The more people involved in decisions the less they can be made into a common understanding efficiently (speaking generally and in favor of subsidiarity). For instance, a town's population may unanimously agree to ban heroin. They have the right to restrict this trade, if it is not done by force on others’ property but done by a cooperative association of home owners on their own, because in this circumstance they are making decisions over what is done on their own property, but doing it together and coordinated. For a member to oppose the understanding of their association—a law— is to break a contractual agreement. They make these contracts through votes made in their associations together, and by signing up as a member. According to the principle of subsidiarity, heroin, again, for instance, may be banned on a town level if it is accepted, but whether or not it makes it to a county level is up to the rest of the towns in the county. If the county bans it, it is up to the counties in the region whether or not to do so for themselves as well, and so on and so forth. An international confederation would deal with issues between country-sized federations and would take the place of world institutions. Conflict between locales designates a higher level of concern, and so subsidiarity suggests federated action in this instance.

When the cost-principle is recognized, and costs are internalized, conflict will gradually whither away as humanity sees the disutilitarian nature of killing another human being. More shared understanding will be passed up the chain from individuals to societies and all of those things that humanity finds abhorred in common will be restricted without restricting freedom itself. Individuals have a legitimate use of force over their property when it is so granted by society. The agreements that society is yet to make as a whole will be left to the forces of polycentric law, the existence of overlapping jurisdictions.

The sovereign is shown as squares of property on the map. The colors are the zone, and likewise, the zones may federate at a district level as well, together or separate, as they choose. They will likely choose at some point to federate with those they are closest to in order to have mutually controlled dispute resolution processes instead of a need to resort to violence.

REVOLUTION

There are many means of creating change, but most people don’t actually use the most efficient methods. There are many that I absolutely abhor for their violent behavior.

A violent act I want to address is the act of voting. If we are trying to create a society where people are free to live how they want to, granted that they are not interfering on the rights of others to do the same, then this should put voting for political office completely out of the picture. I say this for many reasons.

One reason is that representative democracy is inherently flawed in that it is a top down strategy. These kinds of hierarchical relationships are always prone to abuse. Any time a person is given the ability to choose for someone else it opens up for exploitation.

For another, can you imagine yourself running for office? You’re probably busy working, going to school, taking care of your own projects, and trying to have some ‘you time’ all in a timeframe that isn’t so large when you start to think about the big picture. That’s how it is from my experience, anyway. It’s taken all I can give to start sitting down to write this book after working, taking care of my home, organizing, and maintaining social relationships.

Say you did have the time, though. What about the money for all the signs, gas for meetings, and everything else that comes with running a political campaign? What about hiring managers for the campaign, and spokespeople? Some people will work hard for free if they are passionate, but you’ve almost read this entire book and I’m telling you it’s not that easy to get people passionate, no matter how much you are determined to do so or how knowledgeable you are about the subject matter.

So who the hell does have the time, persuasion, and money to campaign for office? The rich do. It does happen on a seldom basis that a poor or radical person will be elected into office, but that does not help much when it takes a majority to win a vote. It’s the rich who have the money for campaigning and for fancy clothes and cars that make them look so much more valuable than the average person, and that give them persuasive ability. It’s the money they can throw around for campaigning and hiring others to help them. It’s the relationships they have with other rich people, who they can promise benefits to as soon as they are elected. The state is an institution that serves the rich. This is just the first problem with representatives

Another problem with representative democracy is that even if you can have the most genuinely compassionate person in political office, people make mistakes. Even the most intelligent people can cause horrible problems. That’s because people can not possibly know what is best in every situation, especially when it comes to the lives of others. Even if you found the most intelligent, compassionate, and capable person on Earth, wouldn’t it be hard for you to allow them to become your ultimate decision-maker in life? Even if they promised they would only act in your benefit and said so with a smile? I would never accept, myself, but that could just be me. I do submit myself on a limited basis to the will of professionals such as my dentist, I guess, though even then I am curious to how much I should.

The reason that I say that voting is violence is because our government kills people all of the time. One can argue that voting for the right politician will solve the issue, but the fact is that someone else didn’t vote for that politician because they didn’t want them. Get this: it may not be because they are wrong to feel that way. Everyone feels differently and because they feel differently will act differently. Some of these actions will be illegal simply because people see no moral qualms with breaking laws they disagree with and will do so. Though it may be indirect, voting is a form of violence, as it arms the state with its power to coerce the individual, and just as the conspirator who hires an armed thug to knock off his opponent is just as guilty for the crime, those who participate in voluntary elections give their consent for the crimes of the politician. Even if it is the opponent that lost the election that acts so horribly, the contract has been signed, and you agreed to abide by the rules of the game—and thus support the decisions of the winner, regardless of whom it is. Even if someone votes for a political candidate who is against war, they agree to play the game by the act of voting, and if a pro-war candidate wins they have been given legitimacy to tax and use that money for war. The state is the enemy of peaceful society, which would arrange itself on the free contract of its participants. The state, as a mechanism used to restrict the free contract of the lower classes of society, is in great need of displacement and, yes, revolution.

When most people think of a revolution it is a really messy situation with violence, economic deficiency, and many things lost. There is also the fear that a power worse than the first will take control. Violence is necessary sometimes. I think the difference between positive and negative violence is one which is easy to differentiate. That is, violence which is self-defense is positive, while acts of aggression are not. This has been called the non-aggression principle and is the belief that all acts of aggression on person and legitimately-owned property are inherently illegitimate and should be opposed with force if necessary which, in reaction to aggression, is legitimate use.

Traditionally in the States the legitimacy of property has been applied to continual title to homestead, but may also be applied to a more usufruct and Geoist understanding of land possession as well. Really, it’s defined by the contract or tort outcomes the individuals come to; the tacit or expressed will of the community.

The real legitimacy of violence then rests on whether or not people feel it is necessary for, or more efficiently led to, positive results. Positive results should be those that are within the realm of the non-aggression principle, as anything else is an act of aggression and is inherently intrusive and coercive.

There are certainly many instances of tort offenses and the breaking of contract that have had positive results. Robin Hood is a folk example that quickly pops up in my mind. According to speculation he was going against the law of the land— the King’s social contract that had been holding the nation together— but in so doing was helping others by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. The contract of the Kingdom was instigated with aggression, and as such, could be broken without aggressing (in the negative sense) but instead by acts of self-defense and the acquisition of the positive liberties for the people of England. This resonated with the people as an act that, though violent at times, was necessary and just. Just as property rights are deemed by the respect of others, so is the legitimacy of force, and so the non-aggression principle becomes best defined by society’s will itself.

For this reason, small acts of insurrection and illegalism, though possibly ethical ways of living antagonistic to capitalism that may be considered a form of self-defense, become pointless while they do not have the support of a larger mass of people. Self-defense is always necessary and, though there may be times when violence is as well, the best forms of self-defense are those kinds that lead to long-term results and sustainable change.

I’m not saying that insurrectionary movements or the use of force is not necessary. I am saying these kinds of things have their place. Insurrectionary movements work best where there is an already existing framework of self-government, but where the oppressor is an obviously separate entity. For instance, a society of rural cooperatives that has been occupied by an outside army would do best to rid themselves of their intruders. Their intruders are external and easily pinpointed, until the society has been absorbed.

Our society is one which poses much more complex problems. Our society, though in the end created out of force, is exploited more by the powers of psychological pressures than that of the gun. Our society is not black and white. Many of the exploited exploit one another. A landlord may go to work where he or she is exploited by his or her boss. A boss may pay unnecessary rent to his or her landlord. They may both be in the clutches of creditors, or be the creditors themselves, earning interest on investment schemes.

For people here in America, authority isn’t so much a person. Although class lines can still be easily drawn, there is much haze in what is called the middle class. Authority is an action. It is the way that we treat one another and the relationships that we have. Ending authority isn’t as easy as ending people who rule. Many of the people we love may be de facto members of the ruling class. Killing people doesn’t teach others how to live without a state or keep from becoming one.

Instead, we need to face the problem as it affects us— the conditions, the relationships, the problems. Authority is integrated all around us, and oftentimes comes from those we love and respect. Though at times we may be left with no choice but to protect ourselves in violent manners, violence is something that should not be taken lightly, and certainly should not be looked upon as any ideal means of creating social change.

Evolution is a gradual process and for this reason the revolutionary approach of Mutualists has been that of gradualism and evolution. Gradualism is a tactic of revolution that stresses small changes which integrate into the system and inspire others to do the same. Although it may take some forms of self-defense to retain our progress, gradualism is a non-aggressive approach to change.

Some exist in the lower classes not because they are failures but because they are out of context. They are those whose standards are more highly evolved, who choose to live simply out of a drive to better themselves and achieve their preferences for higher goals— of self-perfection (instead of material gain)— and whose legacy will one day succeed to become the standard of social progress, as others attempt to mimic such a state of calm understanding and respectability. Gradualism begins with the individual.

While many insurrectionary and illegalist groups may be acting in manners that are philosophically non-aggressive, they have yet to appeal to the masses, who are in the moment unconvinced of the ideology or the means to create change in this fashion. That is, there has not yet been reached a critical mass capable of sustaining this kind of change. Critical mass is that point when there are enough people to enact change and keep it.

In order to reach this critical mass it takes small steps and gradualism offers these small steps. Gradualism starts at the bottom and works its way up, creating contracts among individuals, then between institutions, and later between federations. The gradual building of contractual relationships will allow a critically massive and mutual definition of non-aggression to exist, and when the people decide to have change they will be capable when they agree to the kind of change that needs to take place. This kind of understanding has been applied to three main schools of anarchism, namely syndicalism, cooperativism, and platformism.

Platformism originates with the revolutionary movements of the anarcho-communists and was advanced by Nestor Makhno. The first platform was known as the Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft), the purpose of which was to give anarchists a unified vision of society so that they may better work toward such a goal. The platform represents a federal tendency within the movement.

Cooperativism focuses on starting cooperatives throughout the economy. It uses the strategy of dual power in order to combat capitalism. The idea behind the strategy is to create alternative institutions that, due to providing more efficiently what people value, will outcompete the capitalist firms and government in the market. Examples of such institutions can be seen in producer and consumer cooperatives, shared land trusts, as well as in mutual organizations for insurance and credit.

The cooperative model is very promising. It offers the ability to get to a fair economy without the need for violence. The downside is that the cooperative movement is restricted in some ways. Many government and corporate policies make it difficult to start these kinds of firms, and so they oftentimes only exist in the price-taker market and have no way competing with monopolies. Another factor that may contribute to this is that those who would benefit from such an economy are those who are suffering from the one they are in and thus have no ability to invest into these kinds of situations if they want to. Oftentimes they will associate in order to solve some of these problems, but change seems to be slow if this is the only tactic that we use for economic change.

Syndicalism is the use of unions in creating economic change. Oftentimes related to collectivist models of economy, this is not necessarily the case, but is thought to be so because of the success of syndicalism amongst collectivist varieties of revolutionaries in Spain and throughout Europe. Syndicalism, in and of itself, though most commonly supported by collectivism, does not represent an economic model but instead a means of achieving the model desired by its participants. It is a strategy, not a model of political economy. The strategy? Use unions to expropriate the property of the rich. It’s like the strategies of insurrection, but with a shared and democratic understanding of what is and is not aggression held by the union. We’re talking mutiny on the largest scale.

Though the tactics of dual power, syndicalism, and a platform may be greatly capable of solving the problems of usury in our economy they should not be considered the only options.

A newer philosophy of market anarchism is toward the use of grey markets. Although it is a way to build critical mass, it allows a much more flexible and less organized way of going about it. Instead of the expressed contract of democratic organizations, it focuses on the tacit agreements that rest in the market. Proponents of this method, agorists, are hoping to build critical mass through more impersonal market relationships, hoping to bring dual power and tax-resistance together. The idea is to encourage unregistered businesses, untaxed exchanges, and networks for economics under the radar of the state. A central mission is to rid the state of its funding— taxes— which are taken by means of aggression.

A revolutionary is a person who sees the demand for a revolution and tries to make that revolution happen. In many ways it’s like a social entrepreneur who sees a demand in the market for revolution. There are many ways to go about this and there is a big debate among revolutionaries about the proper tactics of revolution. Some of the debate is between ‘social’ and ‘lifestyle’ tactics to revolution.

The social revolutionists argue that a focus on individual success results in the neglect of the organization required for carrying on a socially beneficial revolution. The lifestyle revolutionists argue that the only way to influence society is to show it how things can work better on a large scale by setting an example on the smaller one. The tactics of both are necessary and should reinforce, instead of exclude, one another. An example of social revolution would involve unions of various sorts (tenant, student, worker, consumer) striking, slowing down, boycotting, and using other tactics of civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action, eventually expropriating the property of the rich. An example of lifestyle revolution may be bicycling, not buying from corporations, not eating meat, being a pacifist, self-sufficiency, writing books, or starting alternative institutions among many options. Many of these things support one another, especially the connection with lifestylism and the starting of institutions. Both begin with knowledge, but it seems that lifestyle must be the foundation for this knowledge in order to set a standard. If one’s knowledge is in line with the times and allows society to progress it has a good chance of succeeding on an individual level. When this happens others see the social success and will adapt to it if they can or have the will to. If this continues long enough there will be a community of people who have engaged in individual revolution and are then capable of social revolution because they hold a shared understanding with one another.

No matter the tactic of change chosen to take, none of them mean a damn thing unless they spread. We’ve already discussed the importance of critical mass, but just as important is knowing where it starts and how it can be found. Gradualism is a process whereby we can reach an understanding between one another, but this understanding has to start somewhere. We don’t just start feeling the same way all of a sudden— we have to learn why to feel that way. Revolution begins with education. It is only when we can reach a shared understanding that we can even think about spreading it as far as critical mass. It begins with one individual at a time.

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is when the truth is believed. True information can exist without being known (such as gravity for the longest time) and belief can exist without truth (such as Santa Claus), but it is when belief and truth overlap that one holds true knowledge.

How can one know what is true? It is very hard to do so. What is seen as knowledge changes because we can only make decisions upon our senses and, as innovations in science are made, new beliefs challenge the old. The Universe has structure but it is seemingly without at times because it allows change and evolution, both physical and perspective, in its currently existing frameworks.

True to the information they have accumulated, what an individual believes in the moment is known to that person as “truth” regardless of the beliefs of others. What others believe and share in common with the individual is seen to them as “knowledge,” and ideas unshared with the individual are seen as mere “belief.”

It was rational for the Europeans of the Middle Ages, for instance, who believed the Earth was flat, so, to their understanding, it was, for a very long time. On a small scale the Earth does indeed seem flat, as in some prairies or valleys where the terrain is relatively level. Just because the Earth is round on the planetary scale does not negate the fact that it is flat on small scales of terrain, so there was truth to their claim, on the scale of their knowledge, and it was believed and practically undisputable for centuries of European history. There have been, however, many “facts” that have been proven wrong through scientific discovery.

What is generally accepted by humans to be truth, if it is not experienced first-hand, is what holds a large percentage of the beliefs of others. Most seek the “knowledge” of the majority before the “belief” of the minority in these matters, though certainly not always. This is a natural instinct because the majority usually sticks to tried ideas that have worked in the past instead of innovating everything. This may, however, stifle the rise of a more efficient means of action because individuals do not always agree with the majority, and sometimes for a good reason— they may hold information contrary to that of the majority opinion.

Every individual believes, in the moment they do something, that it is the right thing to do or they wouldn’t do it. In the present, every individual is making what they see as the right decision even if in the future it will be seen as a bad decision or it was seen as a bad decision in the past. Ultimately the decision made is the one that they believe holds the most utility for them at the moment.

It is when people can communicate a similarity between one another or appeal to one another’s reasoning that their beliefs become reinforced, and it is in this area of social life that we find the most human unity. It is when beliefs overlap that our information is affirmed and we believe that we are seen as having knowledge— or a belief of the truth— by others, and vice versa in a mutual relationship. To humans, believing to have the truth is all that matters when it comes to making decisions, and when individuals believe they have a shared knowledge it creates human unity because they can expect collaboration and similar choices.

Human unity can be based on what we may see as a false knowledge— such as a religion we don’t agree with— or by a true knowledge— such as many practices of Western science (according to the opinion of most of the participants). All forms of human organization, positive or negative as one may see them, are based on the shared beliefs of the individuals involved.

There is no true morality separate from that which we make through our choices. There is no right and wrong except that of what wins out and what fails to appeal to our senses. In nature what is right is what is now, and what is wrong is what isn’t. If the individual is successful in passing on information, genetic or otherwise, that individual is successful in that area of evolution.

People are living in the consensus of the past. Today is the mass sum of all of the choices that have been made before, due to the fact that everyone has their own perspective and no one will ever be capable of full knowledge. Everyone makes decisions based on what they see as the truth in the moment, which individuals define themselves in their beliefs. Even if they ultimately defer the answers to someone else, they believe that individual to have a better understanding of the truth, and so they still choose their own truth indirectly when they decide whose truth to believe, even if it is not internally created.

If it is true that individuals produce their own systems of ethics (and it is true or no one would break the laws of their own religion) then it must be true that morality itself should not be accepted as objective until it is knowledge shared in common between individuals as a mutual understanding. This creates some interesting conflict because it opens the possibility that criminals are acting ethically—though subjectively— and because every individual holds their own perspective and ethical system, everyone is actually acting justly, according to their own systems of thought. This is what allows for ethical contradictions, such as whether or not it is moral for a starving mother under extreme conditions to take food for her children, and the relationship of negative and positive freedom, which are both opposite forms of one idea.

If there is crime our society is sick. It has an illness. That illness is a lack of information and shared understanding about the truth, because when humans have information they tend to prevent illness, in all of its forms. This particular illness is one of the individual spirit as well as of socio-political and economic system. It’s time for a new standard of ethics to take the place of the old.

Ethics are largely centered upon what happens to the belief holder. The golden rule, for example, a core in many people’s ethical philosophy, is based upon this fundamental idea of doing to others what feels good to oneself (‘do unto others as you would have done unto you’). It is where one’s ethical systems— that which one would have done to their self— collides with another’s ethics— what the other would have done to their self— that there is conflict. When both see “right” or “wrong” as being two different things, but when both are right according to their own relative situation. People are different. If our choices are determined by our situation and our ethics are based on our experience (do to others what you would have done to you) then it must be true that morality itself is relative to our experience and objective truth is found only when it is shared.

Those who share information must share a common situation in order to do so. Human minds are like computers that are programmed with external information, and we make decisions off of that information based on the ability of our hardware to process it. The information we collect is based on our surroundings, and this allows us to thrive in them better. Naturally, those who share information are more capable of thriving and helping one another do so.

We can learn and benefit from just about anyone. Claude Levi-Strauss suggests that native people of the Philippines, the Hanunoo, divided local plants into over 1800 mutually exclusive categories, whereas Western botanists divided the same group into 1300. If the Hanunoo are right about any of their distinctions we may have something to learn from them. They have the advantage of history and a more personal relationship with the plants. The ability to use technology gives the Western scientists an advantage in some ways as well. The most productive action becomes cooperation and the sharing of information between the two to create a purer classification of the truth and to hold objective knowledge together.

One of the most beautiful aspects of being human is the ability to experience knowledge with others. It is a binding force. Ethics are grounded in an individual’s ability to open up to the experience of others, though such understanding is dampened by personal perspective. Only by understanding others’ perspectives can one act ethically, so communication becomes the key to ethical behavior— over conflict when it is possible— and compromising or collaborating is the outcome best reached in the moment. Communication has the ability to connect experience and create understanding.

When knowledge goes unchanged it has reached a state of equilibrium, and this kind of knowledge is seen as the most likely universal truth, according to the adherents of the belief at the time. The desire to find happiness is one to find a constant equilibrium in self and environment. The desire to have a universal experience or comfort in agreement is the same. In order to find this comfort people must be willing to accept a philosophy stating that those who disagree with them are right to disagree, to the degree that they have not been persuaded otherwise, just as everyone believes they are correct for making the decisions they do from the beliefs that they hold, but may still be persuaded with truth. We can’t judge those who don’t know what we do.

It’s important for people’s beliefs to include the capability to listen to opposing viewpoints, and to change their own if the need arises. It’s by hearing the concerns of others, the reasons they are right, that individuals can grow in their knowledge with humanity. By holding what they believe to be the truth open to change they can continue to be right, at least with themselves, as they continue to come across new information. Pragmatism is a virtue.

If one’s views remain unpersuaded they are just as right as anyone else in asserting their own. Unfortunately, there are many forces working against a majority of people in asserting themselves and their beliefs about the truth. The psychological pressures used by some to persuade others to accept their authority is an example, which is then reinforced by the belief of those who have since been persuaded by it. It largely works by keeping information from surfacing so that adherents of the information may never share knowledge, though they may be in the closet holding the same belief.

It is the ultimate goal of humanity to be right with itself and satisfied (the laws of perpetual motion seem to make this inevitable). To be ultimately right with oneself, however, is to be right with everything else, because people, as well as other life and non-life, affect one another’s subjective experiences. The only way not to interrupt one another’s pattern is to share an entirely objective experience together, but this requires similarity.

The process of full similarity, complete equality of outcome, and total understanding can’t be jumped into. In order for perfection to work it must work for all of its constituent parts. If it doesn’t then structure will be lost instead of found.

Evolution is a natural process and our journey as a species through avoidance, accommodation, collaboration, compromise, and competition is all part of evolving. The only way true equilibrium is possible is at full entropy— a perfect distribution of balance. Some would call this equilibrium a state similar to Nirvana. Moving from domination to respect, and from compromise to collaboration, etc. is all a part of the entropy and syntropy of information. Causality moves us forward from the singularity to plurality, while finality draws us near, and all of our thoughts and actions are but parts of this process.

PURPOSE

When information is set free the truth can be found. If the people who are suffering the consequences of lacking truth find it, those who benefit from their deficiency lose their monopoly on information. A new standard of knowledge will arise despite the fact that those who benefited from the unfairness see the change as undesirable and, thus, wrong. It is in hopes of such a change— a transition to fairness— that this information is being presented to you, its reader.

To hold knowledge of oneself as a key participant in the creation and destruction of our direct surroundings, and the Universe at large, is to understand oneself as a crucial part of it, capable of enacting change. This is a revolutionary belief, and one that has been fought over for centuries, between those who do not benefit from freeing such knowledge and those who do. We— all of us— are the intelligent designers of the future, and the master class does not like us to know that they aren’t the only ones capable of deciding. Our opinions as a class are as valid as anyone else’s and should have just as much chance at being tried and tested. This is dangerous knowledge that threatens those in power.

To understand one’s place in the universe, where one has come from and will be going, is to know that, though the perspective they hold is unique, the potential that makes up their perspective has existed since the beginning of time and will last until the end of time, and is the same potential everything has (as seen by the conservation and transformation of energy/matter; matter and energy are interchangeable). In this way decisions that have been made in the past have been made by the individual, in previous forms, with different consciousnesses, already. We have already existed… as the beans we eat that become our bodies and the living beings that rotted down to become food for those beans (like we will do). Consciousness is an inevitable part of the cycle now.

We are matter evolved. When one eats beans, amino acids in the beans are used to construct muscle material. Parts of the beans literally become the person.

Some may feel it is going too far to say that these plants made decisions to do these things, but they are reacting off of genetic coding and external stimulation the same way that humans do. If they are watered and fed they grow. If light is coming from one direction they grow toward the light. If they are damaged they heal their wounds. Don’t forget that the human body is largely auto-regulated as well. It has systems in place that work without us having to think about them working. Do you think about timing and breathing every breath? Creating white blood cells to fight off illness? ‘Conscious’ senses are only a few of the senses that the human body is capable of. In many ways people are like plants. Plants and animals even share a common ancestor if we look far enough into the past. Rather than seeing ‘consciousness vs. lack of consciousness,’ I feel it is more appropriate to see degrees of consciousness in all of life. Sensations and feelings are consciousness, and even plant life exhibits sensations (such as the hairs that tell a Venus Flytrap to close its ‘mouth’) even if they are not highly sophisticated calculations as made in the human brain.

The point is that these plants existed before animals. Their actions made the world of animals possible by giving them an evolutionary platform. They supplied a food resource that was capable of giving the animals the calories and nutrients they need to survive. Thus, many of the plants literally became animals through the evolution of biological energy conservation.

People generally regard animals as a higher life form than plants. This may be due to animals sharing a higher understanding of life or knowing pain that plants are incapable of feeling. Humans evolved later than most plants. In this way evolution by mutation and natural selection poses the possibility of quantum cooperation by establishing a path of consciousness that can progress in understanding.

Consciousness, unrestricted by time, may already exist on a quantum level. For instance, Amit Goswami, theoretical physicist and professor, proposes that the universe is composed of consciousness at the fundamental level of the universe. This is nothing new, as Monist Idealism has always proposed similar notions. Quantum cooperation would suggest that this consciousness benefits by evolution, as this would be a consciousness that is not restricted to individual bodies, but experiences them all. Perhaps the meaning of biological evolution is to allow this consciousness within everything— God— to express its will on larger scales of reality, such as in human and animal minds and societies. Indeed, if anything in the universe can be proposed as an intelligent designer, between the quantum and relative scales, we are as close as it gets, aren’t we? We create order from disorder and give meaning to life.
Time is constantly progressing. At one point in existence all of the forces of nature (gravity, magnetism, strong, and weak) were one force at a point of singularity. Many elements had yet to be formed. Metal eventually formed in stars, which had formed from gas clouds after the singularity had expanded from the Big Bang. Just as elements such as these are a development of time, so too are our conscious understandings of them. We are the universe becoming aware of itself. From physical and chemical laws developed life and here we are now, distinct from inanimate matter, because we have a level of conscious will that molecules do not seem to exhibit.
The reason evolution by mutation and natural selection is so important to me is because when we look at the past we are seeing ourselves. We are seeing the choices and changes that we have participated in making that have gotten us to where we are now. Though it may not be the same consciousness we hold today, the bodies of our past ancestors are the very same particles that have always existed and that compose parts of our bodies today. We are a product of evolution. Just the same, today we are choosing our future outside of our current consciousness by influencing the world in which coming consciousness will exist later on.
Knowing current reality as the consensus of the past, we have created our present and create the consensus of the future. If this is true, the idea of karma may not be so far-fetched, because people are setting up their next experience of life. After they die and they’re eaten by the worms and bacteria they’ll work their way back up the system of consciousness by way of the food chain, so they should hope to make it get better every time!

Quantum cooperation could explain the drive of genes to be passed along time, but it would suggest that there is ultimately a form of energy that is capable of holding all information in its understanding, though expressing different parts as events in space-time. This would entail that the energy moves freely through space and time and that everything is an expression of it. Perhaps a fundamental substance expresses itself for but momentary events, in the infinity of space and time, which one knows first hand as their life and experiences. This energy is likely what everything is composed of and exists on a quantum or smaller than quantum level of reality. The quantum scale is able to make quantum leaps, and thus has access to the future, making the quantum scale syntropic, giving way to biological creation.*

Our lives are seemingly pointless at times, aren’t they? We seem to only exist by the physical laws of motion, conservation, creation, and destruction. Then, what if the meaning of life is to create our own meaning for life? What if the meaning of life is creation itself? What if meaning is an emergent and becoming phenomenon? How does this tie into consent?
No one can tell you what your purpose is, that is something you have to decide for yourself by your own free will (given to you by nature’s mutations and the realm of probability it offers). You create your purpose. Your existence is predetermined by the laws of nature, something of which you are a part, but you (your genes informed by experience) make your choices to act just in the same way as those who came before you. Your parents made the choice to have you and, as such, they are your creators and, unless one considers mutations you may have, you share half of your genetic structures with each. If you decide to have children they will hold the same relationship to you.

It seems that the meaning to consciousness, and living in general, is tied to teleology. Through the dialectic of time matter and form evolve; everything is a functioning part of the immanent process of creation and destruction in the Universe. If Hegel is correct, and we will reach a point of objectivity through the dialectic that develops from self-awareness, “free will” seems to be the mechanism by which this will occur, and is actually causality moving backwards.

The fact that humans have the power of choice and that different people make different choices at different times tends to put some sway on the argument of free will. However, free will does not seem to be the main rule, if one at all. Causality seems to play a much larger role in the world today. However, free will does seem to exist, and determinism has not held a strong argument in some fundamentally important areas, specifically in the quantum levels of physics and in philosophy. Free will may likely become a more standard protocol at a point of plurality in the Universe where consciousness has been further developed and less restricted by materialism.

Free will seems to be related to the ability to choose the future. Since we can see time progress favorably through biological evolution, we may assume correctly that in our own progress we tend to further that evolution. Syntropic interactions are common to biology. Every new sense that is developed— from touch to sight, to hearing and echo-location— strengthens the individual’s ability to make choices about the future. Some have argued that natural selection is limited in causality, and that there are also genetic attractors that can explain the recurring forms of matter found in nature, specifically in biology. Free will seems to be tied with the ability to choose from attractors existing in the future.

Consciousness has the ability to pick up on finality, and to direct the flow of life toward it. Our consciousness, and the consciousness before us that led to us, is constantly trying to move forward. Without consciousness, just as naturally developed here on Earth as metal is in the stars, perhaps the Universe would not work the way it must in order to sustain its continual cycles. Our free will exists for this very reason, but we all have free will and until we can agree we will not have picked up on finality in its entirety, only certain probability waves separate from one another. In the future we must collapse the same wave— the universe (or we cease to perpetual the cycle of creation and destruction).*

People have a tendency to find beauty in symmetry and in the golden ratio, among other things (we choose sexual partners and friends partly on this fact, as well as material possessions). We tend to strive toward freedom and equality, despite their contradictory natures. We’re always working for the best in what we have. Perhaps we do so because, upon picking up on finality, consciousness is beginning to set up the perfect crystal at the end of the universe (thermodynamic equilibrium) that could be necessary for continuing the processes of our constantly cycling existence. It may be only then that existence may continue without loss and move into negative temperature, or creation.

We can decide to be creators or destroyers. We will do whatever our logic says is in our best interest, but what is in our best interest? It’s all relative, but as our experiences grow in similarity the less relative our best interest becomes for us as humans. The more we share information and connect with one another voluntarily the more satisfied we will become as we agree on specifics; the more we will reach what we want.

Will, want, desire— these are all interrelated terms that essentially explain what it is to be alive, mechanisms that allow us to grow and inspire us to transform our surroundings and ourselves. What makes something alive is the fact that it has free energy (thermodynamics), and is capable of doing work and reaching goals. Life uses energy that can be exhausted on activity and replaced, capable again of doing more work. Life gains energy. It grows. Death is entropy; the loss of energy. It is degradation. I believe the existence of consent to be the practice of life at the fullest, whereas aggression, intrusion, and maliciousness are those actions that limit life, and go against its desires of continuation and growth, and finally expel its energy to make it fall short of its goals.

What are the goals that we all seek, though? What can we find in common between all of humanity? What are the attractors of ‘finality’? To Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit Priest known for his dualistic pantheism, the attractor is believed to be love;

“Love alone is capable of uniting living beings in such a way as to complete and fulfill them, for it alone takes them and joins them by what is deepest in themselves.”

Though the material world may be driven by entropy, the spiritual world is driven by syntropy, and one day this force will overcome the other;

“Driven by the forces of love, the fragments of the world seek each other so that the world may come to being.”

Consciousness may be absolutely essential for the continuation of the universe, and our evolution toward consent, love, beauty, and compassion, as well as all of the universal desires of humanity, is driven by final attractors (syntropy) and not by the death and decay of the material world (entropy). Without conscious will the material world may never be able to return from thermodynamic equilibrium after it is approached, but the very fact that we are here having this conversation (by way of a book) shows that there is a mechanism contradictory to entropy— creation— and this mechanism is essential to understanding where we come from and where we are going. To certain extents, we are that mechanism.

To many cultures, the main attractor can be summed up in virtue. Virtues include bravery, compassion, humor, discipline, humility, etc. — universally appreciated characteristics, regardless of time or space. To the Taoist, virtue is acting in accordance with ‘The Way.’ As Aristotle reminds us from his time, “All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.” The fact that people regard virtue with such esteem means they conceptualize a goal, and a concept is but a finality that is yet to be made physical (it exists outside of concept only in the future). Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called the ‘final’ culmination of love the Omega Point, which he equated with God— perfect knowledge. Others have come to similar conclusions. Frank Tipler also has an oscillating theory of the universe with a big crunch he calls the Omega Point.

Although most of us ultimately will not pass our genomes on all of the way to the Big Crunch, every little bit that makes us up will be there in some form or another. Every one of our genomes begins an experience because of the syntropy of life, the exchange of DNA in our parents’ gametes, to entropy in death. In the passing of one’s gene sequence and ideas (memes) to possibly future generations (if it happens at all) information is being preserved.

Even after full expansion of conscious will throughout the universe such entropy will be followed by syntropy. If given an infinite number of combinations, in an infinite amount of time, the forces of syntropy and entropy will form your exact presence again and, if given more time, your universe just as it was before.

If the Universe is infinitely beginning and ending with small variations and we can be reformed again in space and time, it is possible that every combination imaginable can happen, and will happen, given the proper situation. What does this mean? It means that because you think about an option you are capable of taking that option, and if you were put under different circumstances you probably would. It means that probability and free will exist on our scale. It means in another Universe your loved ones may kill you, just as some people will be killed in this lifetime by the ones they love. What if this doesn’t require another Universe at all, though? It is possible that every experience in the very Universe we are in is exactly that— slight variations of the same exact thing— with only slight differences in our coordinates. Relative to objects traveling at or past the speed of light— from the future— that may be just the case. You and I may be the same, but at different coordinates in space and time.

What would that mean for us? Because all matter is interchangeable with energy, and all energy is interchangeable with itself, it would mean that every single particle of us will experience every single perspective in the Universe outside of us, because all of our matter and energy will eventually travel forward, backward, sideways, and throughout time and space, which means that our particles will eventually compose every single item in existence. If this is the case, maybe it means that we should try to evolve toward being better to each other, because even if we don’t realize it in the moment, or it is made necessary by the situation, it would mean that hurting one another really is hurting ourselves after all.

“The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.”

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

“Every discovery in science, every invention in mechanical arts, every philosophical system, is but one more link in the chain of human knowledge. We build upon the past, and the future will in turn take up the task where we have left off.”

Francis Dashwood Tandy

On Ghosts and Mushrooms

2010-09-16T12:48:00.000-07:00

I remember being a little kid with my ridiculously Christian mother who would tell me about spirits and aliens and things. Sometimes I would see something from the corner of my eye that looked like a human figure in our halls. She said it was the ghost of my uncle, Butch. I was terrified. I saw the ghost too!

One night my cousin spent the night and we were telling scary stories and things and then when we went to bed we were both terrified. He said something about a head and pointed to a corner of the room. It was a head alright! I saw it too! Terrified, we both wouldn't run to turn on the light switch, though both of us rationalized that it can't be real. Needless to say, I finally ran to turn the light on and it was my globe that we were scared of.

The paranormal stories always freaked me out as a child. I would be scared to walk through the halls at night sometimes. I was scared of the windows because I didn't want anything to see me. I was generally taught to be scared. Not just of the paranormal, but also of society.

When I was a kid I tended to believe what I was told, but I also tended to want to experience the belief first hand. I think part of me was willing to accept belief in ghosts just to be "normal" (which is what I thought my mom must be at such a young age and only being exposed to my family). I think what happened with the ghost is, for instance, like a similar even that just occurred which explains all of the ghosts in my past. It also happened last night. When I am using the sink in my kitchen I will turn and will see a figure in the door and get startled. I really do see a figure there. Evolutionary psychology teaches that there are two stages of fear in humans, however. The first is the startle whereby you react subconsciously before acting upon rationality. Your body tenses up so that you are capable of the next step, fight or flight. Then you rationalize what the situation actually is so that you can make a judgment call, which is the second step.

When I last tripped on mushrooms I saw a grid system projected across the room. I know that it was the way my mind categorizes items in relation to one another because you learn in post-structuralism that sometimes it is best to categorize by what something isn't rather than what it is. Your mind is constantly completing images for you. Your eyes can't see well enough to create the images you see out of pure reality (we can only focus on so much), so your mind is putting it together with memories of structures. For instance, if you look at a square with a small notch on the side very quickly you can probably tell it's a square, but you may not notice the notch because your mind assumed it was there, like other square objects, and completed the image for you. This is also why we can't remember strangers' faces. We haven't been around them long enough to project our memories of them to complete our image when we see them. If we have a long exposure to something we recognize it quicker because our subjective image matches more in depth with reality. The fact is that when I turn after using the sink I am used to seeing the wall, not the new bookshelf in my living room I just put by the entrance to the kitchen, so in my mental map, when I see an object there, I am startled because I have not yet adjusted subconsciously. I am used to a rectangle followed by teal background, but instead I saw a rectangle followed by a black form, the bookcase.

However, in my secondary instinct, I remember that it is the bookshelf once I gain focus with my eyes. What if I saw something and didn't get to get to the focus on the actual situation, only the startle of a new presence? I think that is what I would see in the halls of a child. Reflection on glass or on glossy walls, for instance, that may be the same general size as a human, and like my bookshelf may be mistaken for a person, can only be seen from certain angles and if you are moving it may appear and disappear. This works for anything. One time I saw a leaf blowing at me and I thought it was a mouse! There are endless explanations for the second stage of fear not to be reached, and I think this is the root of the fear of the paranormal. It's also the fear of those who do exist around us. If we saw our rulers get sick, whiny, or say stupid things like they do in real life we may not be so afraid, but we'd have to take a closer look. In absence of truth in an experience people try to rationalize an answer.

Information and the Dissolution of Authority in Society

2010-08-31T22:51:00.000-07:00

I was recently reading a study done on human consensus. They took groups of people and told them that the rules were to stay with the group, no communicating, and not be any further apart than arms length from one another. There were letters on the floor and those conducting the study told select individuals of the group, a small minority, to find their way to a specific location. The results showed that those who were given a location lead the rest of the group to the stated location without breaking away from it and without any communication other than asserting themselves toward the goal. When individuals were given separate locations, the group split up evenly relative to the number of leaders.(http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1518/781.full)

What this article did for me was prove that knowledge is, in fact, power and if we want to dissolve authority, as anarchists, the way we must do it is by spreading information. When the individuals who were selected to work toward a particular destination were told to do so, they were given a form of information that the rest of the group lacked; the destination. Because they had this information, they asserted themselves and the group followed.

Humans have a tendency to follow groups or individuals. It's been said that we are inherently pack animals. This is rational for us because we have a society based on division of labor. The division of labor allows us to specialize in areas of knowledge so that we can become valuable to others. We tend to follow those people who assert themselves and have confidence in what they are doing.

People assert themselves when they come across success in their lives. They have done test series where relatively similar individuals are unknowingly given separate challenges, some of which succeed at the challenge and the others failed. After the tests they were put in a situation where an individual attacked them with increasing intensity. Those who succeeded on the previous tests tended to react to increasing aggression with increasing counter-aggression and those who failed tended not to increase their counter-aggression. Those who did gained confidence from success and confidence increases ones internal locus of control. The internal locus of control is when an individual believes they have the power to create change in their life. The external locus of control is when an individual feels that it is out of their control. This comes from failure.

Now, it is arguable that some are genetically predisposed more than others to success and for this reason I am not arguing for perfection or the complete equality of society that can only exist from homogenous perspective of uniformity of geno and phenotypes. I am arguing for justice and freedom for individuals based upon their inherent qualities with which they were born and I call this a state of social and economic equilibrium; where there everyone is making the best choices they can given their situation.

We are in a particular situation in need of a new equilibrium because I think we have not made the best decisions we can regarding our situation and I think the reason for this is the interruption in the free flow of information. We are taught from the time we are born to have an external locus of control and to leave things to the experts. The problem is that this kind of rationality negates people from becoming experts themselves. Though comparative advantage certainly has its benefits, by restricting the competition of individuals to gain and apply knowledge they have gained one restricts them from success. When a person is restricted from success but sees a world in which others are succeeding they gain an external locus of control. This is what our class, the abiders, is suffering from. The deciders have confidence because they have been given artificial privilege through the monopoly of land, money, and protection. They are given subsidies for their projects, loans for their businesses, inheritance they can't take care of by themselves, patent protection for their ideas they didn't and could never come up with without others ideas in the past, protection for their illegitimate property, and all of the good things in life that are attributed to success. When they are filmed all of their flaws are covered in make-up and mistakes cut out of the film or tape. They have all the money in the world to allow them success and so they have confidence and we believe it is for good reason. In me, however, it is starting to be frustrating.

Aggression is largely caused by frustration. If someone frustrates another that person is likely to act in a variety of ways, but the frustration must be released somehow. People store their frustration. They let it out on the person causing frustration if possible, but in the case they fear the results they let it out on someone else, and usually someone they associate to the frustrator somehow. One can't get upset at their boss, creditor, or landlord when something happens. Those people hold authority over our lives. We want to though and the second best option is someone we associate to them somehow, but that would mean another person with authority in our lives who would be able to cause more frustration if we acted against them. So instead we must settle with someone else entirely and this frustration creates aggression in our own class because we release it on each other, the abiders of the system.

Another cause of aggression is having an advantage. If someone has more money, resources, or abilities, they are more likely to aggress on another person. According to Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, European society had a geographical advantage that allowed it to aggress on other nations and this is the root of European imperialism in the world. He points to things like soil conditions and water supply in the Fertile Crescent, animals used by humans, immunity to disease from the animals, and leisure time provided by easier agriculture that allowed technology to rapidly increase. This difference in resources resulted in intercultural domination in favor of those in the area who held a geographic monopoly.

Once spread, however, there became almost no such thing as intercultural anything and the focus had to be transitioned to an intracultural domination, and one which rested on stopping the free flow of information. The Catholic Church, for instance, maintained Latin as their religious texts and did not allow the language to be learned by commoners in order to withhold information to control them. Our government today keeps us from much information because it knows that if people had the information to make decisions in their lives and to gain an internal locus of control that would give them confidence enough to pass the aggression to the ones who deserve it; those who caused the frustration. If we did away with restrictions from success; patents, rigid zoning, subsidies, taxes, interest, rent, and profit; authority would dissolve, by the free competition of the market and the availability of individuals to have knowledge and success, and we would see no need in usury or control in any of its forms.

Sexual Dimorphism and Equilibrium

2010-06-29T00:14:00.000-07:00

To open this, I think it is important to make some things clear when talking about the sexes. When I say "women" or "men" I am talking about the MAJORITY of people who self-identify with that category NOT EVERY INDIVIDUAL. If you're a man or woman and something I say regarding men or women may not be true of you don't be upset. The sexes overlap all of the time. I'm talking about generalities. So, if I make a generalization about men or women that you don't think is applicable to yourself that is to be expected. Just think about whether or not you can see that point with others, and remember, many differences between men and women have been mapped out by scientific research in the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and economics. What I am going to discuss is male and female equality despite our differences and why it is important to respect one another, why it is important not to make rigid rules of regulation regarding the sexes, and how to view difference as a desirable trait.

Some may say what I am about to mention is "essentialist," meaning a doctrine that certain traditional concepts are essential to society and should be taught to all students, regardless of individual ability, need, etc. That is not at all my intention, but it is also not my intention to ignore the data presented by scientific studies which show a difference between the sexes. What my intention is tonight is to demonstrate these main points.

1) Difference exists but it is smaller than most give them credit for

2) Differences are what gives value to relationships.

3) Our differences are constantly changing and evolving, which is why

4) There should be no rigid legal system regarding seperate rights between men and women, despite the fact that

5) With freedom of choice and political equality men and women may make different choices despite the same rights and this is not a reflection of oppression but of individual choice.

6) A balanced equality can be found between the sexes.

According to dictionary.com, semiotics is the study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative behavior, and the analysis of systems of communication such as language, gestures, or clothing. Semiotics are important because it reflects human psychology and the way that we categorize things in our minds.

Again according to dictionary.com, feminism is the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. How can this relate to semiotics?

First it's important to know how semiotics work. Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), the "father" of modern linguistics, proposed a dualistic notion of signs, relating the signifier as the form of the word or phrase uttered, to the signified as the mental concept. For instance. When I say "dog" what you hear me say is the signifier, but the image you get in your mind is the signified. The "signifier" dog then can have as many "signified" as there are concepts of a dog. One person can think of a doberman and another of a chihuahua. Unless they see the same exact sign they will probably have different concepts of dog.

This relates to feminism because of the way some culturally view women. In points of China's history, for example, women have had to wear foot bindings. These kinds of constraints are what people have seen as the signified "woman" in that culture. That is, when people in ancient China categorized women in their minds, traits of being woman was being incapable of walking because of foot bindings. This was a complete system of patriarchy. Where does patriarchy come from?

To start with it comes with a mindset of otherdom. That is, women have, in the past, been seen as the "other." When someone hears the word "woman" it is easy to place in the category of other. Why? Because of the prefix "w-o." There is no prefix for "man." For some reason "man" has also come to mean the species in its entirety. In linguistics, this has given women a position of sub standard. That is, if "man" represents both male individuals and any person that kind of makes male the standard and female substandard. In actuality, if either sex is substandard, it is the male because of the Y chromosome. We'll talk about that later. The fate of "otherdom" can be seen in other repressed groups as well. Slaves in America were seen as the "other," sub, or only half human. The distinction between women and men is important sometimes and may be linguistically necessary, but to categorize both parties under a name synonymous with one sex, calling the species"man" shows a lot of ignorance.

Where does the idea of the "other" come from to begin with? Sexual differences seem to be the only answer and to understand it we have to look into biology. Why do we have sex to begin with?

It seems that sex occurs and is maintained by humans because it improves the quality of genes in the species. This is despite the fact that, by having to go through the effort of finding a mate, sex can reduce the overall number of offspring. In order for sex to be evolutionarily advantageous it must be associated with a significant increase in the fitness of offspring. One of the most widely accepted explanations for the advantage of sex lies in the creation of genetic variation. Genetic variation is very important because it is what allows adaptation to occur. That is, without different genes, a species would not be able to withstand all of the pressures of natural selection such as changes in habitat or food intake. It is our differences that make us strong and sex is what allows for these differences.

Sexual reproduction can bring together mutations that are beneficial. Sex aids in the spreading of these advantageous traits. The more options of advantages the better! Sex creates new gene combinations that may be more fit than previously existing ones. It also helps to refine a species by consolidating bad genes into unsuccessful individuals. One widely used example of the gene preference that sex allows is the ability to ward off parasites. Sex may also lead to reduced competition among relatives, such as in the social animals like naked mole-rats, ants, bees, and termites.

We have two kinds of sex chromosomes, Y and X, which then reflect different morphs. Chromosomes are any of several threadlike bodies, consisting of chromatin, that carry the genes in a linear order. The human species has 23 pairs, designated 1 to 22 in order of decreasing size and X and Y for the female and male sex chromosomes. Remember that... all of this is about a 1 in 23 difference! Just as well, the Y chromosome is much smaller than the other chromosomes (autozomes). We can vary within sexes as much as between them.

Females' gametes (eggs) carry in them X chromosomes. Male gametes (sperm) carry with them both X and Y chromosomes. When a female presents an X chromosome in her egg and a male presents an X chromosome in his sperm a female is born. When a male presents a Y chromosome and the female presents an X chromosome a male is born. However, sometimes a rare (1 in 100,000) and unequal crossing will occur during meiosis and an XX male or XY female is born who then exhibits signs of the opposite sex. This can create a gray area between the sexes.

Within the chromosomes there are genes which direct the growth and features of the individual. A reflection of one's genes is called one's genotype. One's genotype when seen interacting with its environment is its phenotype. For instance, one could have the same exact genes and exhibit a different phenotype due to the circumstances in which the genotype is placed. The phenotype is what is expressed as visual or audible traits. When an individual exhibits a beneficial phenotype genes are then selected by the phenotypes they exhibit. This has lead to size difference in the sexual dimorphism of the species. Sexual dimorphism exists when there is a morphological difference between male and female. A morph is a type or form within a species such as man and woman.

The difference in size between the sexes is attributed to sexual dimorphism (the systematic differences between individuals of different sex of the same species). This difference is greatly related to factors including food supply and whether or not there is a division of labor in the care-taking of the young. In Bonobos there is less difference than in Common Chimpanzees and this can account for the way their sexual relationships are distributed; more equally. Another example and relative of ours, the gorilla, has a society based on unimale polygyny with one male defending and reproducing with many females within a controlled area. The last of the Hominidae (of which includes chimps, gorillas, and humans), the orangutan, has a unimale polygyny that is considered exploded because the females don't even associate together, even when away from the single male in an area.

As well as an obvious difference in size, those primates that are polygynous tend to have much larger canines. It is falsely assumed that the great apes have canines primarily for eating meat. Like their body size, their canines are more of a tool for combat. Males in strongly dimorphic species, for instance, will tend to have larger canines because they compete against other males for alpha status. The male gorilla for instance, an herbivore, has very large canines.

Humans are moving away from sexual dimorphism in size and women and men don't exhibit much of a difference at all in our canines. This reflects on our sexual relationships and is the reason, like the Bonobos and gibbons, we prefer much more balanced relationships between the sexes, such as polyamory and monogamy, where there an equal male to female ratio.

Though women and men exhibit different traits, due to difference in chromosomes, this does not mean that those differences are not equally important to the species. The existence of the differences actually suggests that those variations ARE important to the species. That is exactly why the difference exists.

It's also important to remember that our differences are minuscule. When it comes to differences in the ability to process information, the differences, though stable through short amounts of time, are in the very small percentages. There's also a lot of overlap.

In economics, comparative advantages are those relationships in which one individual exceeds above another at certain tasks. It is proven with mathematics that individuals who excel at certain tasks should be involved in those tasks and that to be involved in another task is to be taking upon oneself an opportunity cost. Men and women may show signs of excelling at different tasks. Division of labor is natural, but it is ever adjusting to the circumstances of its surroundings. We have evolved as a species and we have benefited from shared care of the young and companionship. This evolution is largely due to the choices that women have made regarding sexual partners. Women are choosing men who are emotionally and rationally capable of having a stable relationship instead of having to fight for a status. Where men tend to have higher sexual preferences for physical beauty, women tend to focus on emotional and material stability. It is largely the feminine selection of partners which encourages morality and social rationality in the species. Not to say that men don't at all choose partners for their ability to be ethical and rational human beings, just that men and women tend to have different marginal utilities for one another.

The transition of sexual dimorphism toward similarity in size reflects a likeness in our phenotype. Unless our genes are more mobile between chromosomes than we give them credit for our similarities come from completely different genes which are expressed in a similar manner. We are slowly becoming similar phenotypes as a species. Though we maintain an obvious sexual dimorphism, we are slowly acquiring one another's traits. Over many many years we have lost our dental differences and have generally become the same size. More so than ever men and women are participating in jobs that were traditionally seen as out of their range. Today we have female mechanics and male nurses.

In many of these fields there still remains a difference in number, pay, and position. Though some of these differences are arguably due to comparative advantages between the sexes these arguments have always existed and today many women are out competing men in very technical, mechanical, intellectual, and leadership skills that they have traditionally been eschewed from. If there does exist a difference between the sexes, which there likely does, the best thing for us to do is allow it to sort itself out in the market and not to make any kind of rules about the situation regarding sex, but only the ability to perform one's job well. Let the best woman get the job. When we do, some people are surprised, because oftentimes a woman is better for a job than a man can be. We're really not so different after all, but our small differences that exist can be beneficial for either sex. More and more of these differences are being acknowledged in women as they are entering fields in mathematics. Men and women don't do math better or worse than one another, but they do it differently from each other. This doesn't mean that one is superior; it means that each should be commended and utilized for their successes. Many women are succeeding in fields of math where men have failed. Women are graduating college more often than men. They are taking over many management positions, and apparently, are more successful in investing money than men. Not to mention that women are better suited for long life because they generally live longer.

Now, that is not to say that we should segregate tasks by sex. That would be ridiculous. Just because one sex generally performs better in certain situations does not mean that individuals of the other sex can not exceed above the generally more successful sex. There is always overlap in these kinds of things and that is why a rigid system of segregation is not desirable. It does not allow for adaptation, and remember, adaptation is what allows the species to evolve.

Our skills are what have developed technology-- technology did not develop us. This means that though men and women excel in different skills those skills can be used for technology in a varying but equal manner. In short, just because men developed genes for the purpose of typically masculine activities, such as hunting and fighting, does not predispose them to technological capabilities more so than women. Neither sex adapted to the conditions of technology more than the other. What were the tasks that women traditionally performed in primitive societies? Well, it is said that women, in many cultures, were responsible for most of the calories ingested by the band or tribe through their gathering of fruits, legumes, grains, and vegetables. Much more food was provided for by gathering than by hunting. Men were responsible for war and acquiring meat. Most of the basket-making, cloth, pottery, and child-rearing was the responsibility of the women. What makes these intricate tasks less intelligent than brutish tasks such as killing one another or animals? Men helped out in the family as well, such as by teaching skills to adolescents, but much of their help was in acquiring meat and materials for the family outside of the social unit. For this men have suffered in social skills which can make for strong leadership. Leadership is dealing with people. Though many tribes had males chieftains, they would also have a council of women elders who, many times, had more sway with the group.

It is kind of silly to look for equality in likeness sometimes. That's because at points our equality can only be rationalized in the equilibrium of our different abilities. For instance, five dollars can buy you many things. What gives those things something in common? Though they may be different, they share a similar utility and that utility can be measured by the fact you are willing to pay $5. Though they are different they have the same value. We need not to look to each other as the same all of the time, though we are more similar than we are different, sometimes it is important to remember each other's differences and celebrate them because that is what gives people value; differences. Without differences we wouldn't have division of labor, trade, or friends with amazing talents that we can not comprehend. We are all better at some things than others. Those differences are what gives us value. The sexes are meant to compliment one another, not conflict.

War, Economics, and the State

2010-05-19T22:52:00.000-07:00

It is often that those in favor of a self-managed society say that without the state war would not be so abundant. Why is this so?

The state is an organization established upon violence. Taxes are proof of it. The United States were far from perfect in their establishment. The democracy was direct, and in the Articles of Confederation there is stated a clear unanimous decision needed between delegates of the states to make changes, but one could not vote unless one was white and owned land. It was a similar direct democracy as to the Athenians; democracy for the rich. This is clear class establishment.

Since then every citizen has been allowed a vote. This is much better, but we have since lost the directness of our democracy in favor of representatives. The class system remains because the poor don't have access to office and thus have no access to decision-making power. Mainly the rich become politicians and the poor who do end up selling out. It's important to remember that even a person in their best of intentions does not know your priorities as well as you do.

Who fights wars? The people of a nation. Who decides to fight them? Politicians... but we do as well. The ruling class in our past knew very well what they were doing when they established the Articles and later the Constitution. They understood that their social contract relied on the consent of the governed by which people tacitly agree to what is happening. They planned around this fact and turned our democracy into a republic. They made it difficult for revolution to occur in the nation by promoting rich men's agendas in politics by the ability to sway representatives. They understood that it can be costly for citizens to revolt and they made it so on purpose.

This was all fueled by tax dollars. Taxes which are stolen and given by the rich to their organization, the state. The organization which promotes monopolies by restricting barrier to entry, protecting surplus land ownership, and holding itself a monopoly on the use of force. It is the latter monopoly I will be discussing in this note.

Without the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force there would not be violence on such a massive scale. Why? Because of the internalization of costs.

Markets are diverse and consumers tend to overlap institutions. That is, I may have a favorite restaurant, but I like to go to other restaurants as well. Some people will go to the same two restaurants as myself, as well as those I do not frequent. In a market situation, lacking borders of jurisdiction, where there is established polycentric law (overlapping jurisdictions, such as private security) many consumers, now freed from compulsory taxation, will be established subscribers to potentially competing institutions. If it were a conflict between institutions in completely different markets the costs would be too great because there are still possible subscribers to both associations. It would be too costly to wage war on customers or associates. The cooperativization of industry would make it even harder for firms to wage war on one another because personal vendettas between elites would not be able to sway policy, only the firm as a whole could.

As it stands, the state is the only institution allowed to run a military. This ensures that the elite remain in power. It is also a mechanism for them to gain more power through war. The state does this in a few ways using economic forces.

Firstly, it promotes a class based society. This class based society is easier to influence into passivity and cooperation. People are not interested in the way politics work because they are not involved in them directly. Decisions are not transparent. The media hides information. Citizens assume they are being told the truth by people who are smarter than they are. They don't question war. Most citizens express agreement with war.

Secondly, because the state holds so much power the citizens are afraid of the state. They don't want to withdraw their consent. If they do they don't want to do it alone. Starting a revolution is a lot of work. The citizens tacitly agree with war.

Thirdly, the costs of war are hidden. Because of taxation, which is assumed somehow to be essential to our freedom by many people, the costs of war are spread about through times of non-war. The costs are always in affect and so they appear low.

Fourth, because of its nature in the market it is naturally lower in cost due to economies of scope and scale. The state is a monopsony on military labor and can thus demand the price at which the service is provided. For instance, the state can draft you into military service and pay you as little as it wants for it. It can drop your benefits after service. Military protection is thus cheap for consumption by the citizen's taxes. The state is also a monopoly on this protection and, because everyone pays mandatory taxes for it, it has the ability to be that much cheaper if it has to. It benefits from both economies of scope and scale as it is both a monopoly and a monopsony.

If people had to pay for their own military protection it would dwindle because no one would have a demand for it. People who are concerned about their own costs don't desire conflict. The state starts wars because it is profitable for the elite. It can externalize its costs onto us without us noticing and then send us to war. The rich never fight the wars they start or have to pay for them out of their own pocket with their own labor, if they did, there would be no more war.

If you're interested in ending war you must first tackle the issues which create, and make unmanageable, both natural and artificial monopolies, but that's a story for a new day.

Why do good things happen to bad people?

2010-04-30T12:17:00.000-07:00

This was written for my friend Neil from evolitionist.com

on the question  "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

---

Why do bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people? This is a question that has haunted mankind from the beginning of ethical consciousness. In order to understand this one must look at ethics and the understanding of them. Knowledge is when a truth is believed. Truth can exist without being known (such as gravity) and belief can exist without truth (such as a reptilian race of aliens). It is when the two overlap that one holds knowledge.

How can one know what is true? Well, it is very hard to do so, and the truth changes as innovations in science are made. The universe has structure and yet in a post-structuralist method which allows change in existing frameworks. What is generally accepted by humans to be truth is what holds a large percentage of the beliefs of others. Individuals hold a subjective reality. Every one has their own perspective and unless you are God no individual will ever be capable of full knowledge. Individuals do, however, define their own vision of the truth. What the individual believes in the moment is known to that individual as “truth.” What others believe and share in common with the individual is seen as “knowledge,” and ideas unshared with the individual are seen as “belief.” In the past individuals on a mass scale, isolated from other cultures, held a common belief that there was a God. In society this was known as the truth, knowledge to be held by the individual, and it became enforced through morality, God’s morality.

In my opinion of knowledge, because of science, there are no deities which are outside of the laws of nature. There is no true morality. No right and wrong. In nature (existence) what is right is what is now, and what is wrong is what isn’t. This changes constantly according the influences of gas, energy, and matter which includes the decisions humans make.

Because of genetic differences (genotype), and outside conditions (phenotype), every individual holds their own perspective. Thus every individual has their own ethical system. It is where these ethical systems collide that there is conflict, when both see “right” or “wrong” as being two different things. It is in conflict that respect is earned or lost. In conflict an individual can make one of five decisions; accommodate, avoid, collaborate, compromise, or compete. All of these types of conflict resolution can be found in today’s society. Government, for instance, is the accommodation given by an individual to the morality of the state. Because of our individual perspectives every individual believes, in the moment they do something, that it is the right thing to do or they wouldn’t do it. In the present, every individual is making the right decision even if in the future or past it will be/was seen as a bad decision.

This is because every individual is an egoist who holds the belief that what is right is that which makes them happiest. The best of actions and even the foulest of actions come from this. Later on, however, horrible actions may be seen as mistakes and false beliefs the individual held in the past which they thought was knowledge. It is here that ethics are born. Ethics are just people doing what they think is right. What they feel to be the truth about the reality of being human and acting socially. However, no individual does something without believing (to them knowing) it is right for themselves. Even the worst of crimes, such as torture or war, can be justified by the individuals engaged because every action is a selfish action which is seen as a right by that individual.
Human understanding of right and wrong can be very different from the rest of nature but is also greatly similar. Although we prefer to avoid intraspecific (same species) violence in most cases, we have no problem with the overcoming of other animals. We think killing animals can be “right” and see this as a social view of knowledge, though individuals such as some vegans may see it as a false belief. However, others see extreme veganism as a false idea because most vegans will use some animal products such as cars (every car has leather in it). Their veganism, the idea that animals should not be overcome, becomes a belief at this point because in their actions they believe it is right to overcome animals if it is for the use of a car even though they may rationalize it is only alright when an alternative is not provided.

Deviation is the key to evolution. The way natural selection works is through the selection of beneficial mutations. These mutations may be beneficial ecologically, socially, or artificially, but they are still outside of the ordinary framework. Outside forces are involved in ecological selection such as weather, food, water, predators, etc. as well as in artificial selection such as breeding animals. Internal forces in society are involved in social selection such as the choice of a sexual partner, friends, and groups. Therefore we make intraspecific selections (social selection) and interspecific selections (ecological, artificial). The choices that we make in these aspects of life determine the way things will be in the future.

Through social selection humans have come to develop cultures which promote shared ethics. The conflict between human individuals has led to forms of avoidance, accommodation, compromise, and collaboration which are oftentimes chosen over competition and these choices reinforced by ethical systems. Laws, the written understandings of these ethics, have been put into place to ensure that individuals have such an understanding. In the form of the state these laws are accommodated by the people through the consent of the governed. In the ethics of compromise there exists the market where goods and services are exchanged. Collaboration has brought us human institutions where we cooperate together, the more democratic and cooperative the more collaborative the institution.

It is in the nature of humans to desire full control of their lives and hold liberty, both negative and positive forms, at the extreme. It is because of these desires that we have a destiny of such a future. Such a future insists on complete collaboration as its final destination, but must be reached through the consent of individuals, a shared understanding of right and wrong; knowledge, belief, and truth. Such an understanding can not happen without first sorting out our differences. This is hard because it means complete genetic similarity and ecological circumstances.

Every individual desires to promote their own genes in evolution. The hymenoptera; the order of insects including ants, bees, and termites; are eusocial because of the genetic similarity between siblings. The naked mole rat because of the genetic similarity between all members that allow a single queen to promote the entire group’s genes without as much risk to the individual (less than if the social bond was not there for mutual aid). Humans are less related to each other and tend to promote our interests above others much more than these species. It is possible, through years of social selection, that we could be so related. This is especially true if the whole Earth were to be covered with a single intermingling human population where all cultures are sharing DNA. The isolation of the race would be the across the whole planet, allowed by technology, and we would move toward sharing genes and opinions through the uniformity of mutations in our whole species. This would unites us.

The first step in doing such is to make the accommodation of competition (not necessarily the economic sense) obsolete to compromise and collaboration. Accommodation of anything less than collaboration or compromise comes from power relationships which are out of balance. When a human individual or group can press its will on others those others are accommodating the will of that group or individual. Oftentimes this accommodation comes from a victory in competition. This is the nature of the modern nation-state which has been created by force and pressed on the will of their subjects in a similar manner to feudalism back in the day.

What is it that creates competition and what can we do about it? Largely it is due to scarcity. A human is much more likely to have a marginal utility for violence if that individual is facing a time of disparity. That is why crime raises when people are poor. It’s also why you’ll find some instances of cannibalism in non-cannibalistic cultures. In the case of the Donner Party the scarcity was food and so they killed and ate each other. In the case of psychotic individuals the scarcity may be very personal and specific such as a lack of compassion in social life or it could be a lack of good genetics. Most of the cases of intraspecific human violence, and interspecific violence in general, is due to scarcity of resources. There are two kinds of economic scarcity. One is the natural kind which is due to ecological pressures. There is nothing that we can do as humans to prevent this kind of scarcity except to develop better technology. The second variant is artificial scarcity which is due to monopolies.

There are different kinds of monopolies. Most are created by artificial privileges granted by the state such as patents, copyrights, subsidies, licensing, etc. Others are considered “natural monopolies” and they exist on the basis of resources in geographic regions as well as on economies of scale. What can be done about these monopolies?

We can eliminate all compulsive actions in our ethics. This means dismantling the state and substituting free associations which run on voluntary contributions for membership instead of on taxes. This would eliminate all artificial monopolies created by the state. As long as the large free associations remain directly-democratic any existing monopolies afterward can be balanced by mutual ownership (the association and the workers) which will promote transparency in operations and bring prices to their cost. As for the monopolies due to economies of scale what can be done is the organizing of worker and consumer unions which demand contracts of mutual ownership in mammoth firms, making them bilateral monopolies, through the use of non-market bargaining power such as nonviolent direct-action and civil disobedience including strikes and boycotts. These same actions can be used to demand worker-ownership and democratic control of medium and smaller sized firms. Credit, being subject to competition or bilateralism, would be brought down to the cost of its issue and would be available to any healthy adult. This would allow new cooperatives to be formed for the benefit of buyers and sellers. All that is left then is the beast which created this mess in the beginning, the geographic monopoly, which owns resources which are incredibly scarce. What can be done about this monstrosity? The state must be eliminated, as stated before, but how? There must be a working system created which will replace the one it eliminates before doing so in order to sustain.

The state is an institution which presses its laws on its people by the use of controlling its people’s stolen property through taxes. Its social contract is enforced by the consent of the governed and if the governed don’t give their consent we have a revolution. That is what is needed in society. It must be done correctly or there will be new problems. This can be done through the use of tenant unions starting on the neighborhood level and working its way up to a federal one. They must participate in rent strikes until they can expropriate their property and resist taxation while diverting their taxes to gray and black market institutions which offer the same services at an equilibrium price. Aside from offering public services such as sanitation, healthcare, etc. at cost, the services would most likely include the protection of private property in self and in possession. In a free market, however, it would be done differently. Instead of taxes it would be a purchased service. The service of protection would be based on many factors which influence the value of the land to be protected. This charge would be paid to the bilateral institution and from it, after operation costs, an equal dividend paid to all members allowing anyone the ability to pay for land. When every person has the ability to own their own land all of the evils of capitalism (lasting hierarchies, interest, profit, rent, etc.) will be diminished.

After the landless have capital the mission is to put an end to compromise and a start to full collaboration. The free market is important for today’s life because it is a completely voluntary means of distribution which takes into account individual priorities and can be seen as a compromise of interests. It’s not equal, in the sense of homogeneity and sameness in all abilities at all times, but it is at equilibrium. The free market can be seen in the more economically competitive parts of society. The other option is public goods which would be provided by free confederation and this would be the more collaborative part of society. If we are to reach the goal of full equality it means reaching this point where all things are made public and all is shared by the human race.
It is important to do this voluntarily, however, so the option of communism is not one which would be beneficial until we do become more homogeneous in opinion which may mean closer genetic similarity. This is because people are selfish and do not want to carry another’s weight when they may see attributes of that individual as weak. This has served a great purpose in evolution when genetic diversity was easier due to isolation because cultural and sexual selection made sure beneficial genes were passed down and destructive ones were eliminated over years of evolution. The option of state ownership means forced combinations and this creates problems.

The way to reach collectivism voluntarily is to allow conflict to be sorted out in the free market. Where mutuality exists in the market as democratic bilateralism it is collaborative. Where it exists as compromise we just have to sort out our differences still in market competition. When people, individuals with differences, are forced to give money for a common cause they are inevitably going to have strife with one another. They already had to pay for what they using, but they didn’t decide to pay with people with a similarity in opinion. In the market individuals are free to buy from those offering services they appreciate and not buy services that are not as desired. When a monopoly arises out of an economy of scale it means that individuals prioritize that institution above others as a society. They hold knowledge that it is best for them. It becomes problematic when all agree on an institution but are not allowed any real decisions in it. The state is a prime example because we agree out of forced accommodation. We are taxed by the state and then, since we are a “democracy,” we have to decide where our stolen money goes. Inevitably it would be a waste of our money to pool it together and then decide to do nothing with it because we can’t agree so then representatives become necessary to make decisions on our behalf. Of course, people being selfish being, representatives don’t really represent our behalves but represent their own and will until we stop consenting to being governed by compulsion. Instead of this we could be choosing our own institutions and making decisions in them as well. The way this can be done is by getting together with others who already have a similar opinion. The true nature of mutual aid is not forced taxation between those with differences of opinion but the voluntary cooperation between those with a similar way of living. That is when true consensual agreements become utilitarian for people.

The reason bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people is because every person is both good and bad in the eyes of others and until we can all get on the same page we will all have undesirable things happening to every single one of us. Who is right or wrong, what is good or bad, is just a battle of perspectives. The only right in nature is might. People are strongest when they unite and share perspectives. The next step in human society is to eliminate artificial scarcity so that we may better battle natural scarcity with the technology that we can create together. In order to have ultimate knowledge every person must be on the same page. This means total consciousness of self and of others. “God” is a collective force, complete knowledge, and as such every action is both right and wrong depending on the perspectives of those being affected. Our duty as deities is to get along better so that we may end suffering for ourselves by uniting and ending the suffering of others as well so that they may do the same.

“No one can be perfectly free till all are free; no one can be perfectly moral till all are moral; no one can be perfectly happy till all are happy.” - Herbert Spencer

A Study of Equilibrium Price and Economic Systems

2010-04-19T12:11:00.000-07:00

Capitalism, being the result of monopolies, exists when prices are above equilibrium and there exists a privately held surplus due to supply controlling the price.

Communism, being the result of monopsony (government), is when there exist prices below equilibrium and therefor the price is dictated by the demands of the state(demand).

Mutualism (anarchism) is when all prices reach equilibrium (cost, the limit of price) and when opposing forces (supply/demand) balance each other either through competition (perfect) or cooperation (bilateral). It is when no one is able to make a better choice given the available resources and actions of others.

Whenever monopolies or monopsonies arise it is important to make an equilibrium through the opposite. For instance, a monopsony dictates demand price and a monopoly dictates supply price. Therefor to reach an equilibrium price (at cost) it is important to organize a bilateral monopoly, the existence of both in the same market (a monopsony for a monopoly, and vice versa) and use non-market bargaining power such as civil disobedience and nonviolent direct-action to demand an equilibrium price at cost.

The best way to find equilibrium price in behemoth institutions is perhaps to become a mutual organization with either buyers or sellers owning the firm (actual capital), with the other party owning the policy of the organization and given considerable voting rights in the way it functions. These kinds of things can be demanded by capital investment in the early entrepreneurial stage but if such organization must be made up later it will take organized civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action to put prices back to cost.

Collectivism and the Nature of Authority

2010-04-14T12:00:00.000-07:00

Human beings are individuals. No two single humans can be entirely alike. There can be very similar humans, the most notable of which are identical twins, but even identical twins have variation from each other. This variation plays positive and negative roles for the human population, but only because we have yet learned to settle our differences as individuals.

The hymenoptera; the order of insects including the bees, ants, and wasps; are highly social insects. The most arguable cause of this is due to their system of sex-determination in which haploid males are clones resulting from a lack of fertilization, leaving the diploid daughters, if the queen mates with only one male, with an average of 3/4 of their genes in common. This is beneficial to the insects because of their sexual division of labor where queens are responsible for the reproduction of the entire hive on behalf of the others. Because the female siblings are closer related to each other than with their own mothers and daughters it is in the interest of their genetics to engage in eusocial behavior instead of competing as individuals over sexual reproduction. They act as a superorganism.

Humans do not share this luxury with the hymenoptera. Our social behavior is exclusively out of our own self-interest, not as a species, but as individuals. Human siblings only share 50% of their genes, which is the same as the amount shared with their parents and offspring. This is the cause of sibling rivalry because each child is 100% related to themself and only 50% related to the others, leaving each child feeling twice as important as the other in the subconscious attempts to pass along positive genetic material. As humans we are genetically incapable of the instinctual altruism of the hymenoptera. We are much more concerned with our own survival than the survival of others because our relationship to our siblings has not given rise to eusociality and consequently sexual selection is much more prominent in our species.

The evolution of eusociality is best described today by kin selection. This model suggest that natural selection may at time favor altruistic behavior. In the case of ants, for example, an ant may only share 75% of its genes with its sisters while retaining full relationship to itself. This suggests selfish behavior but if an ant engages in self-sacrifice how can it be beneficial? Only if it more efficiently passes on the genes of the individual. The concentration and isolation of sexual reproduction to the queen ensures that more of the individual's genes are passed on through the subsequent queens, because they are then protected by a mass of almost selfless kin.

Eusocial societies, being collectivist in nature, stress the survival of the whole over that of the survival of the individual organism, acting as a superorganism. There are two mammals in total which are eusocial in this manner and they are both mole-rats. In the naked mole-rat 81% of the genes of one to another colony member are identical. This makes it worth the cost of altruism to have a sexual division of labor. The naked mole-rat colony is supported by a single queen and three mating males.

There are many movements toward human collectivism, a political system of human altruism, as they stress the complete equality of economic outcome. It can be understood in the maxim of the communists, "from each according to ability, to each according to need." These notions are the nature of collectivism, and by being a top-down ideology with the community at the top and the individual below, collectivism is the nature of authority.

What is authority? Authority is the separation of the decision from the action, especially at command. The use of forced combinations, which are inherent in collectivism, is exactly this sort of separation. Josiah Warren, a student of the socialist, Robert Owen, had lived in the Owenite commune of new harmony where Warren attributed the failure of the commune to a lack of private property.

""It seemed that the difference of opinion, tastes and purposes increased just in proportion to the demand for conformity. Two years were worn out in this way; at the end of which, I believe that not more than three persons had the least hope of success. Most of the experimenters left in despair of all reforms, and conservatism felt itself confirmed. We had tried every conceivable form of organization and government. We had a world in miniature. --we had enacted the French revolution over again with despairing hearts instead of corpses as a result. ...It appeared that it was nature's own inherent law of diversity that had conquered us ...our 'united interests' were directly at war with the individualities of persons and circumstances and the instinct of self-preservation... and it was evident that just in proportion to the contact of persons or interests, so are concessions and compromises indispensable."

For Josiah Warren, "The true basis of society is exactly the opposite of all of this. It is FREEDOM to differ in all things, or THE SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL." He believed, "It is in within everyone's experience that that when many things of any kind of heterogeneously mixed together separation, disconnection, division, individuality restores them to order but no other process will do it." To his understanding "Among a multitude of untried routes, only one of which is right; the more liberty there is to differ and take different routes, the sooner will all come to a harmonious conclusion as to the right one." Just as well, "for true order and progress we must preserve at all times and in all things FREEDOM TO DIFFER in word and in act, and thus approach co-operation by degrees instead of by any violent or sudden leap."

It is only in human conflict that we gain the ability to truly cooperate. Voluntary cooperation is the antithesis of conflict. It is the result of contract, the equilibrium of opposing forces, and the compromise between antagonists. Forced cooperation results in voluntary non-cooperation. It is the forced cooperation that is inherent to collectivism, assuming the right of the community to decide in any matter it deems necessary in the life of an individual, which is the nature of authority. If communism is possible, it is because the benefits will outweigh the costs, but such an understanding must be come to through voluntary cooperation, consensus, and generally reading off of the same page. Unfortunately we are so unrelated to each other that such altruism will probably rely on much less material scarcity or more genetic homogeneity.

The Choices We Make

2010-04-14T11:51:00.001-07:00

Culture is the way that humans select the traits by which we will move toward genetically. By creating social pressures, ethics, culture has developed a means by which humanity will select its own path in evolution. It's the same way that humans have selected dogs artificially over the ages. We have created small ones for companionship, large ones to work, and those that fetch for hunting. We have also selected them based upon their ability to do well with our children and ourselves. Culture is the way for humans to make these choices about ourselves through social selection.

If it is the norm desired by society to know how to whistle due to the fact it is used in the local language, such as in Silbo Gomero and many more, individuals who know how to do so will be favored over those without the ability. The same can be said for our moral systems. In a society which values love and respect, those who are inclined to be caring and decent will be chosen by society as friends and sexual partners. The genetic material will be passed on favoring such choice of action. In a society where there is a dictatorship and strong class distinction individuals will be selected out based on their noncompliance to government. This could have major affects on the movement of the species, especially if it were in heavy isolation, because it has the capability of genetically predisposing individuals to comply with authority and create genetic castes in our species.

It's important to know the choices we are making and how to influence culture with what we think is right. Is it forced combinations which create conflict, wage slavery, racism, and sexism? Or, perhaps like me, it is individual liberty and the end of all classes. Whatever it is you choose, do so wisely, the future is in your hands and the culture you create.

About The Foundation for Consent in Society.

2010-02-12T11:24:00.000-08:00

The Foundation for Consent interests itself in the research and development of theories regarding the existence of the universe and especially those of a cyclical nature, adhering to the principles of the conservation of mass and matter as well as the first law of thermodynamics, stating that if energy cannot be created or destroyed it's existence must indeed be repeated in nature. This can be seen in the circle of life apparent in the food chain here on Earth.

An inclusive understanding of the world is naturally the result of such a reality. Evolution through natural selection has shown the ways that individuals; be they particles, comets, stars, bacteria, reptiles, or humans; participate in the progression of reality in the way they interact. Humans, having acquired such a high degree of abstract thought, have a seemingly unique place in the universe and have the ability to influence it to magnitudes that other animals may not acquire in millions of years.

Holding cyclical cosmology as a model The Foundation for Consent may be considered a number of naturalist tendencies including but not limited to atheism and pantheism; atheism because of the disbelief in a god or gods which can not be proven by science and rationality, and pantheism because of the belief in the universal potential of all individuals in the cosmos. It is in this that it's understood that humans have the ability to influence their reality toward their individual and collective wills and are thus able to play at least a part in the creation process in the universe, and maybe one day beyond it.

What is consent? Where does it come from? How much is enough? How did consent develop in society and how to promote its progression? These are the questions the Foundation strives to learn and share the answers to.

In a world without gods or goddesses and an imposed morality, separate from the laws of physics and chemistry, The Foundation for Consent interests itself in ethics that are rooted in natural processes. In order to approach hard questions in social relationships, as mentioned above, a multidisciplinary understanding of evolution must be used in our education. Questions such as, “Why are people selfish?” and “What makes people care for one another?” must be asked and viable answers can only be found in natural processes which are analyzed by various sciences including, but not limited to, astronomy, biology, ecology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics.

It is understood that human socialization and mutual aid came about through the self-interest of individuals. It is in understanding the self interest in social relations that the Foundation for Consent bases its ethics.

Along with a new vision of ethics comes a new understanding of the relevance of society and its functions to the individuals within it.

It is a turbulent time in modern US history. More and more people are becoming disgruntled with their situation and the way things are turning. Contemporary government claims to base its legitimacy in the social contract theory, claiming its validity stems from the consent of the governed. With a shared understanding of ethics that is much more valid than modern views, the consent of the governed can be withdrawn and revolution can be made possible in nations, and evolution made possible in society.

Social contract theory is based on the principle of tacit consent, by which one agrees to be governed by involving themselves in territory which is controlled by an existing state. A stance like this is based on the expression of negative liberty; the ability to go unhindered and to own property. However, there also exists expressed consent and positive liberty; the ability to assert oneself in society and have the means to exist. Both sides are equally important, but stem from different understandings in the human mind. Negative liberty and tacit consent stem from the selfishness of the id and represent the desires of the individual ego. Positive liberty and expressed consent are rooted in the altruistic superego and the demands of a society of egos in tune with one another. On one side we have the political right, representing the negative liberty and tacit consent of capitalism. On the other side we have the political left, the positive liberty and expressed consent of communism. Being critical of both capitalism and communism, the aim is neither private nor public control of life, but a system of modern mutualism where all interactions are voluntary and all costs are internalized.

The Foundation for Consent sits somewhere between the two positions with an ideology which is based on the equilibrium of the opposing forces, the absolutes of negative freedom and positive equality, stressing direct-democracy (expressed consent) in free associations (tacit consent). The idea is to allow for individual difference and collective harmony to exist as far as they do not contradict one another.

Economic exploitation is the result of prices being above cost. This is possible only in markets where monopolies are present. Monopolies are the result of force upheld by governments and are given privilege through the use of taxes, licensing, and patents to name a few sanctions. By eliminating compulsory government and demanding equal access to natural resources the Foundation for Consent believes that individuals can bring all prices down to the cost of labor, thus freeing the market from monopolies which extort consumers by dictating prices and pushing products.

In a world where all costs are internalized, and thus dictate prices, most products and services will become much cheaper, especially locally. Credit will be loaned at interest rates no higher than the cost of running the bank, workers will be able to own their labor without a boss outside of consumer demand, and every individual will have the means to afford their own homes and health care. Taxes will be made obsolete and government services will be purchased on the market instead of being imposed by a monopoly about as old as civilization itself.

Ending such a strong force in society as a monopoly takes a great number of individuals who are ready to work to change things and understand it is in their own self-interest to do so. To this end the Foundation for Consent promotes an appreciation of and desire for individual responsibility and self-management and aims to promote the means to accommodate such goals in all of society.

The Slavery of Communism

2010-02-12T11:21:00.001-08:00

Whenever I think of communism I am reminded of relationships I have had with people. Have you ever had a friend who has given you something or done something nice for you only to demand a favor for it later? I've had that happen plenty of times and I am tired of it.

A market economy clears this up. Instead of dishonesty and obligation from gifts it leaves gifts just what they should be: non-obligatory. A gift is a gift and it should have no strings attached or you are actually BUYING services in the most conniving of manners; playing with human emotions and making the recipient feel guilty because of the dishonesty of your intentions. A real gift is something with nothing asked in return, it is not the future purchase of time and energy.

In these kinds of sly communist transactions there is no way to tell the equivalency of actions. In a market economy, however, things remain voluntary because a sale is not made until an equivalency is decided upon by both parties. Where the communist can give and then demand whatever he or she wants, the mutualist makes all obligations known in the price of their services, which may even be free to a good friend, but not fake free, a real gift.

Collectivism and majority rule

2009-11-03T11:02:00.000-08:00

As an individualist anarchist I don't desire any group of people to make decisions over my life. For this reason, I am drawn to consensus-based decision-making. In fact I see constitutions with unanimous votes needed for changes as being an integral part of anarchism, highly demanded in a market of sovereign individuals. Among anarcho-federalists (of which, I am one) consensus-based decision-making is seen as more of a problem than a solution. I think this has a lot to do with the economic viewpoints of the federalists in question.

I am a federalist, but an individualist one as well as a collectivist, for I am a mutualist. I believe in the free market as a fair means of transaction of property. Most federalists are of a hard-collectivist persuasion believing in an abolition of property rights. There are many ways this has been done in the past. There has been the traditional collectivist approach of federal ownership and payment in vouchers, and there has been the communist approach with the maxim, "from each according to ability, to each according to need" with federal ownership of all property. Communist anarchists believe that it is in human nature to be giving and that private ownership leads to control and exclusion. They favor community stockpiles of goods, rationed by a committee to the community with no money being used. Collectivists differ in that they tend to believe that people should be paid based on the amount they work, but they remain critical of the private ownership of capital. The lines get hazy when asked to define what is and what is not productive property, or capital. Mutualists see the private ownership of capital as being essential to liberty with no haze about what is property and what is not.

We believe in the voluntary exchange of goods between consenting parties. We believe that the community should have no jurisdiction between individuals' affairs unless asked to by the individuals themselves. We are contractualists, believing that society can create itself through the free agreement of consenting persons. Our socialism comes from individualists and egoists who find it in their own interest to cooperate together for a common good. The socialism of collectivists is top-down assuming, and thus forcing, individuals to cooperate with one another, even where they do not have common interests. The socialism of collectivism forces people to oppose one another, to demand from each other. The socialism of mutualism allows the free agreement that allows a laborer to secure their efforts; according to the price system which is fair and just, taking into mind both the buyer and the seller's utility for goods; for their own enrichment.

Collectivism's "forced combinations," as Josiah Warren put it, are what make it critical of consensus-based decision making. Instead of a bottom-up strategy, allowing laborers to voluntarily trade their product and capital on the market while contracting only where it is beneficial for each individual, collectivism is a top-down model which forces compromise (actually compromise is still voluntary and this is not) on individuals. Traditionally collectivism has promoted a labor theory of value, but this is precisely where it is wrong. Labor does not have value in and of itself, only useful labor. The collectivist may agree here, but mutualists believe that the only people who should define the usefulness of something is those who are engaged in the transaction of the labor product. This is because labor value can be defined by the amount of labor needed to produce a product or service of equal utility, not necessarily the amount used to produce the original. Essentially, I can make yellow horses of play-doh for hours but that doesn't make my hour of labor as valuable as someone who is doing paper-work for a business. However, to someone who is not part of that business and likes my horses they may carry more value. If enough people are willing to pay me a decent price for my horses I can sustain a market for it, but otherwise I will have a market failure and will need to do something more useful for the community.

A market failure isn't a positive thing, necessarily, but it is a voluntary thing. In today's society that can't be said because of collectivist functions such as taxes which are demanded regardless of their utility, which make market failures turn into massive amounts of needless debt instead of a new business plan. In a free market setting there wouldn't really be business failures because workers would ultimately determine their own wages according to their willingness to be socially flexible with the products that they sold out of consumer demand to other workers. Prices would all eventually reach equilibrium as workers seek higher prices and more available markets.

Collectivism proposes problems because when there is a forced combination, such as all workers in different industries having to agree on the measurement of labor-value, there can never be a voluntary solution. The collectivist answer to this, especially on a federal level, is majority-rule decision-making, and thus the domination of individuals. Through majority-rule the most common form of money issued by collectivists were time based vouchers, with hours taking the place of dollars. Of course, as illustrated with me making yellow horses as being compared to paperwork earlier, time is not the only consideration in value. To be fair, this was a common practice for many anarchists, including mutualists such as Josiah Warren, who later refined his labor notes to reflect "time plus repugnance." Warren saw this demand in the market when he noticed that some tasks demanded two hour notes for a single hour work. Later his money was just known as "labor notes" and he used the corn in his shop as his standard of value, but not as its only redeemable basis.

Another concern that tends to accompany my relationship with collectivism is it's desire to be all encompassing. Because everything has to be decided in mass assemblies and can't be dictated by voluntary market forces between assemblies large amounts of privilege are given to their committees, executive boards, and secretariats through majority rule. This can result in coercion against individuals, especially if there is a single international which controls the economy. With the federal collectivist vision of a planned economy labor would be assigned by assemblies and between them by the executive board, maybe through a referendum, and labor would be compensated according to a constitutional plan. Usually it is compensated according to time because repugnance is too subjective, but even in the case that repugnance were compensated it would not be according to the individuals demanding and supplying the labor, it would be to the majority of their peers or to the central committee leaving workers no decision over the value of their own labor. In a system like this I could be demanded tribute for social services which do not benefit me, and to demand tribute to programs which are not beneficial is slavery and not anarchy, for it forces me to work more than I naturally must in order to survive which is exactly the program of capitalism.

-W.S.

A geomutualist synthesis

2009-11-03T10:59:00.000-08:00

Property is the result of the exclusion of use by others. Domination in conflict is what makes justice according to the laws of nature, as can be seen in the food chain and in intraspecific violence. As social animals humans have learned to get together for mutual aid and intelligence has brought this about. This can be related to majority rule in nature. The average human does not usually find utility in violence or theft because there are enough resources to exist so that the cost of existing is too high for the gain of excluding the original owner from their life or property. This is reinforced by society and the laws it places on itself. Humans have found it in their best interest to agree to abide by laws which govern society in order that their interests are mutually protected from those who will not.Humans in agricultural societies found it in their best interest to respect private property as the result of labor. This gave rise to the ownership of land, as respected by individuals in society, due to the efforts of agriculture. This was protected by civilized laws and soon the small nomadic and more communistic societies became endangered. The civilizations which created the laws regarding the land were more efficient, allowing a larger population and thus a larger network of mutual aid and divisions of labor. They dominated the uncivilized societies into slaves, and they claimed the property of less militarily advanced agricultural ones. This gave rise to feudalism, with the civilized state claiming all property by force and allotting it out to eligible individuals within it. In the newly dominated societies the conquerors would respect the labor of the upkeep of the land as much as was necessary to keep power. They introduced their advancements in industry to the people of the conquered nation in order to make them believe, by a more efficient system of output, they were making an equivalent to their labor's effort and that their taxes were justified. Land by now has been claimed by societies which are all competing for more.

It is clear now that land ownership by the means of homesteading and occupancy and use made sense in the beginning of civilization. It would be the same as saying, "I own the air in my lungs." Not many would argue against the sentiment. But were I to say that "you can not breath beside me because that air was claimed by me and I own the title" is simply preposterous! There is enough air to go around for everyone, and you can not keep track of the air when it leaves your lungs. It is not scarce enough to bring about a price. Now, were all the air in the world to be bottled and exchanged it would be another story. That is effort! Such an effort must have started as the selling of a much more utilitarian air which brought about a price in the market. Such would be the effort of gardening on land. To simply walk on the land and leave it as it were gives it no added value just as breathing my air out gives it no extra use (it actually removes it until plants hit the picture). Were I to breathe out air that was of a better quality than when it entered my lungs, such would be the result of a garden on the land. Man must have an absolute right to own the land they occupy and use granted by society. The problem remains that society in the past, upon issuing right of title to individuals within, neglected the fact that population growth and technological growth would allow the complete human domination of the Earth, and that with rising populations this leaves a class of people who are destined to sell their labor by using someone else's property. Instead, with land itself, improved or not, as an essential need for life, carrying value as a scarce good due to population levels, societies must demand it's members' contribution for the protection of the exclusion of the occupancy and use of their land based on its going price, as society itself is what grants legitimacy of private property through its protection. A society like this would distribute the funds equally among its members, allowing any individual the money to pay for land to subsist. The individual must have an inalienable right to leave such a society, but without any society at all an individual is not protected against existing societies and will thus live in competition with them and by the natural laws of domination will surely perish by a lack of mutual aid and support.