Utopian States: Striving for Perfection

Democracy is allegorically like a society where the sheep vote for the obedience school that trains the sheep dogs that heard the sheep.  In the USA, the two main obedience schools are called the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.    The sheep dogs are allegoric to the police, the judges and the teachers in that democratic society. 

Webster defines democracy as a government by the people; rule by the majority.   An alternate definition is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Seriously, the definition given by Webster is too flattering and too idealistic.  The people of world democracies are being domesticated just like farm animals.  The brains of domesticated animals are significantly smaller than their wild cousins.  Likewise, the brains of the modern domesticated man are smaller than their predecessors.  Yes, the brain of the Neanderthal was significantly bigger.

From page 56 of the September 2010 Discover magazine:  “Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1500 cubic centimeters to 1350 cc losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball.  The female brain as shrunk by the same proportion.”  Later on the same page: “Still others believe that the reduction in brain size is proof that we have tamed ourselves, just as we domesticated sheep, pigs and cattle, all of which are smaller –brained than their wild ancestors.”

The Utopian States is all about decreasing the domestication of man by creating governments that are nearly invisible, but more effective so that man will have more freedom and more opportunity.  Opportunity is what gives individuals their security.  With more jobs available for each individual, people don’t need government assistance.  Ownership of a small business will replace social security, unemployment and other government assistance programs.  It has been shown that an abundance of jobs virtually stops crime.

If the lack of a dominant and domesticating government causes an increase in brain size, then citizens of the Utopian States will have the largest brains in the world.

The only concept that justifies free trade is that currency exchange rates are also supposed to automatically adjust so that every nation has an equal opportunity to manufacture and sell their products.

China pegs their currency to the US dollar, thus defeating free trade.  They peg the currency by spending the money from the free trade of automobiles and electronics on TBills and other American securities.  You can verify this by looking at the exchange rates over the years; they haven’t changed by even 1%.

Plausibly, their communistic nation can control and suppress the wages of their workers.  That, coupled with the control of the exchange rates, effectively controls the wages of Americans engaged in manufacturing.

Plausibly it is the fact that this country is faltering is because the wealthiest 20% own more than 80% of the wealth of this nation while the poorest 80% own less than 20% of the wealth.  Historically when the poorest 80% own less than 20% of the wealth, we have a recession.

Why?  Obviously that if one person had all the wealth, there would be no trade and little flow of money as nobody would have anything to give the person with all the wealth.  While this is a deliberate exaggeration, it shows a probable reason for wanting the poorest 80% to have more wealth.  Calculus would show that the optimum amount of trade would happen if everybody had the same wealth.

It seems that China’s suppression of free trade, prices and exchange rates has disrupted the balance of wealth and has pushed the world economy into recession.  What do you think?

The USA (and other Earth nations) could be Utopias when:

 All the laws are entirely destroyed and replaced.

The correctional systems are entirely destroyed and replaced.

The two party system is entirely destroyed and replaced.

The system of voting is entirely destroyed and replaced.

The system of representation is entirely destroyed and replaced.

The system of taxation is be entirely destroyed and replaced.

The school systems is entirely destroyed and replaced.

The economic system is entirely destroyed and replaced.

The constitution is entirely destroyed and replaced.

The concept that there is one “winner”, one top dog is re-taught.

Sporting contests allow ties and cannot determined by officials.

My ancestors arrived on the shores of America before state government and long before the federal government.   My ancestors flourished and did better without government, the police or law libraries.  The majority concept that this nation is great because of government is not founded in fact.

Also not factual is the majority notion that this government has been virtuous or under the direction of any God.

This country was founded at a time when the largest city was Boston with a population of 7000.  In other words, a few thousand home schooled people of the 1776 era have more say than the hundreds of millions of people of our era.  Why are the decisions of the ancients valued more greatly then those of the people of this era?

The government was developed during a time when the telegraph and pony express would be considered high tech.  Now we have the cell phone, television and jet travel.  Why should we just assume that government reached the pinnacle hundreds of years ago?  In fact, for many, government immediately worsened things.  Many, my family included, were better off in the pre government era of the USA.

I have elaborated on the systems that need to be changed.  I will elaborate further.

Colonial America was great before 1776, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

You hear some argue that America is the greatest country on earth because of her government, the constitution, and the wonderful checks and balances therein.  The argument is made that the American government should not change because it has made America great.  This argument is myopic for several reasons.  America can be greater.  America’s government can be much better (and smaller) and the constitution can be greatly improved.

The book A History of Small Business in America  states that:

 “By the time of the American Revolution, the colonists (except for black slaves) possessed a standard of living higher in many respects that that of most Europeans.

  Of course the population of the American at that time was pretty small.  From The Penguin History of the USA:

  “Its [Boston’s] population had risen from 7000 in 1690 to 17,000 in 1740 and throughout the years in between it had been the largest city in the colonies.” 

Pre-federal America had a great standard of living and an even greater potential.  America’s greatness continued to increase during the antebellum years [pre-Civil War].  During this era, America had a small federal government that usually collected NO federal income taxes.  The only significant revenue came from import duties collected at the Custom houses of the port cities. From Wikipedia:

 The first Federal income tax was imposed during the Civil War, then again in the 1890s, and again after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913.  From A History of Small Business in America: “[…] in the early and mid-1800s most Americans continued to share in a rapidly rising standard of living.  Despite economic downturns in 1837, 1857, and 1873, America’s real per capita gross national product (GNP) rose by one-third in the twenty years after 1839 and continued to rise in later years.”

America was great and growing before the federal government existed and great and growing before the 16^th amendment (federal income taxes).  The early era of small businesses was followed by an increase of big businesses and industrialization.  During this period (1869 to 1921) the per capita GNP tripled and the total GNP increased by a factor of eight.  During this period, the federal taxes continued to be small.  The tariffs were around 40 percent.

From A History of Small Business in America:

 “Between 1945 and 1960, the nations’ real GNP rose by 52 percent , with per capita GNP increasing 19 percent;  in the 1960s, real GNP climbed an additional 46 percent and per capita GNP rose by 29 percent.” 

 America was still expanding.  Note, however, that the War had just demolished the competition in Europe, Germany, Russia and Japan.  Tariffs were still high.  Debt was still low.  Big business expanded during this era and small businesses were in the decline.  People of this post war era wanted to work in large organizations.  Perhaps the men that had served in our Armed forces developed the goal to rise up in the ranks of organization.  Furthermore, strong Unions and  tariffs protected the wage of the American worker and they achieved a successful middle class lifestyle.

Is America great because of government?  From bea.gov data, the GDP expanded by 33 percent in the decade of the 70s, 29 percent in the decade of the 80s, 30 percent in the decade of the 90s and 23 percent in the decade of the 2000s.  You might get the impression that the government has presided over this “greatness”.  However, these figures are no better than the years before large government or, in fact, any federal government.  Looking at the inequalities in income, trade deficits, deficit spending and other statistics for a true measure on whether or not the American government has contributed to the American greatness or not.

From:  http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf

[...] the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out, and another 28 million households had only $47,153 on average in net wealth. The top 28 million households had $1,556,801 of net wealth on average, or 33 times that of the lower middle quartile in the wealth distribution. In contrast to the wealth distribution, the annual household income distribution in 2004 was much less uneven, with the top quartile having a share of 65 percent of total aggregate income, while the bottom quartile had at least a 4 percent share. The bottom 28 million households had an average household income of $12,688, but the lower middle 28 million households fared better, with $31,803 on average. The top 28 million households, on the other hand, had $177,265 on average, or more than 5 times that of the lower middle quartile. Nevertheless, both wealth and income distributions were less balanced by 2004 than in 1995, as indicated by the ratios of averages of top to lower middle quartiles. 

Is America great because of government?  The GDP did no better during the years of large federal government than during the years of small or non-existant federal government.  Look at the inequalities in income, trade deficits, deficit spending and other statistics for a true measure on whether or not the American government has contributed to the American greatness.   Perhaps America was destined for greatness despite government.  There is no conclusive evidence that the American government made America great.

Most democracies will never create a utopia.

Government is what the majority wants it to be.  There is only ONE government for all of us.  Only one set of laws, one tax code, one court system, one police system, one president, two senators, etc.  If the majority voted for a car that their government would make, it might be a black 1968 VW.  Would you buy a black 1968 VW if you had an alternative?

I’m convinced that any truly Utopian government would have options, or at least, a few Utopian states that were totally different from each other.

When you think about government in terms of the blandness/sameness created by a majority vote, then the expression “United we stand, divided we fall” becomes false.  Truly the strongest government may be the government that nurtures differences.

There is NO part of government created by the majority that I desire;  my passion is for a utopia where we can all have the government we want.

Isn’t capitalism a democratic idea?  In a capitalistic economy we vote with our dollars – until a monopoly gains control and gives us only one product.  The optimal society would have many small businesses and many small governments.  Furthermore, any imported products would be only from small businesses that adhere to the principles adhered to by the Utopian businesses.

It’s plausible that a democracy of some type could maintain a Utopian civilization, but could NEVER create one.

While Guede was in Germany, police monitored a phone call during which he explicitly stated that Knox was not present when the murder took place.  This means that Guede, the man already convicted of this murder is, indeed guilty.  This also means that Amanda, now also convicted, wasn’t even there.

 The alleged murder weapon – the key prosecutorial evidence – did not have any blood residue on the blade.  The DNA on the blade was too small to reproduce the results with a repeat test.  [It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to reproduce the results since lab and other contamination could cause errors more than fifty percent of the time.]  The blade was too large to fit the outline in blood of the blade on the sheets and also too large to have produced most of the wounds.  Furthermore, Amanda’s DNA on the knives meant nothing since she used them to cook.  Kercher’s DNA on the blade could have been caused by a distant sneeze or by contamination.  Remember that sensitive tests did not reveal any blood on the blade and that this knife was randomly selected from several in the drawer.  The other knives weren’t tested.  Perhaps the steak knives had blood on the blade.

 There was no comingled blood found in the apartment, just Kercher’s blood comingled with Amanda’s DNA in the apartment (hair, dead skin cells, dandruff, sneeze residue, etc).  Only Guede’s fingerprints, and DNA was found in Kercher’s room, on her body, in the toilet and in her Kertcher’s body.

 The probability of Amanda’s guilt is extremely low.  If the prosecutor framed Amanda, he should go to jail.  The prosecutor’s guilt will never be discovered, however, as he will cut a “deal” with Amanda and reduce her sentence considerably in exchange for a signing a “confession” that he (the prosecutor)  will write. 

The source for this article is from the defense as stated in www.friendsofamanda.com.  A statement that no test is significant unless it can be repeated is mine as well as the prediction that the prosecutor will cut a deal for a lesser sentence in order to protect himself.

This is saved in the category of dystopian justice.  Justice is a crutial test of any utopian society for two reasons:

People have two responses to an attack.  They can fight or take flight.  People can fight two ways.  The can fight with force or truth.  When the truth fails, force is the result.  Any battle of truth requires that all people in that society can recognize source, fact and logic.  All members of a utopian society must be educated to participate intelligently in society.  Truth is a scarce commotity and requires proper validation.  Furthermore, people have to be trained to recognize the truth when they see it.

The Millgram experiment may explain why Amanda Knox is now in an Italian jail rather than at home, celebrating Christmas, graduating, getting a job and getting married.

From: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6759992/Amanda-Knox-prosecutors-in-Italy-hit-back-at-US-critics.html

The chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case, Giuliano Mignini, said the criticism from the US was “unacceptable”. There have been accusations of unreliable DNA evidence and a coerced confession. But Mr Mignini said: “[The Americans] are saying there’s not enough proof to convict these two kids, but how is it possible to argue that? The evidence was scrutinized by 19 judges.” Lawyers for Knox and Sollecito are already beginning to prepare their appeals against the verdict. The first appeal is expected to start in late 2010. 

The following is from: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 The Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,  and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: “Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?” In other words, “Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?”

Milgram’s testing revealed that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs.  Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, “The Perils of Obedience”, writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources

The lead prosecutor has introduced not one, but 19 quasi authority figures.  However, one good fact, one good video is worth 19 million quasi  authority figures.

Another way to express the prosecutor’s tactics the fallacy of an appeal to authority.  From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

The UtopianStates would send in the A team to rescue Amanda if that billionaire ever helped us…

Based on the true story of Dee Roberts, a 24 year-old African American single mother of four living in a small Texas town when she is dragged away from work one day in handcuffs, and then dumped in the women’s county prison. The local district attorney leads an extensive drug bust, sweeping her housing project with military precision. Dee soon discovers that she has been charged as a drug dealer.

Even though she has no prior drug record and no drugs were found on her in the raid, she is offered a hellish choice: plead guilty and go home as a convicted felon or remain in prison, jeopardizing her custody and risking a long prison sentence. She chooses to fight the unyielding criminal justice system, risking everything in a battle that forever changes her life and the Texas justice system.

Even more shocking are the statistics at the end of the movie. America has the largest prison population in the world. Ninety percent of the people are in prison because of plea “bargains”. Ninety five percent of convictions are without a trial by jury.

Unfortunately, threats of huge prison sentences extort people into accepting felony charges that they haven’t committed.

I personally can vouch for the pattern of judicial misconduct depicted by the movie. When government gives perks for convictions, or judges get kickbacks for sending children to the detention centers of their friends, then big change is needed. Citizens of the USA need an alternate justice system. I petition the United Nations to provide the world with an alternative.

Fact: People have the right to life and the necessities thereof.
Fact: People have the right to own property.
Fact: People have the right to a government that doesn’t discriminate.

Corollary: We need as many jobs as there are people that wish to work.
Corollary: If a government program – like free trade – diminishes jobs, they need to be replaced by government programs. {Unfortunately, a tiny majority of economists and politicians still think that free trade (trade without tariffs) does NOT cause job shrinkage. Protectionism has become a bad work as Americans have been lead to believe we are so superior that we can out produce those willing to work for less than a dollar an hour.}

Government should propose a few pie charts of the way they are going to spend OUR money and WE should vote on the chart we favor. Personally, spending money on home security and police is my least favorite way of creating jobs. To be fair, manufacturing and farming need more government money (or tariffs).

Should the USA spend a dime on manufacturing to return a quarter worth of taxes or do we spend a dollar on government jobs to return a quarter worth of taxes? It seems like a no-brainer. Money spent on manufacturing and farming produces a positive return.

Gates didn’t start the problem.

Obama didn’t start the problem.

The problem was the cop entering the home, the handcuffs, and the charges. Let’s face it, Americans have been sheltered from the 20 million arrests that happen each year. Americans don’t stop to think that Americans have NO real rights during arrests (just the dubious right to remain silent). Americans don’t know that they can be arrested in their own homes without any search warrant. Americans don’t know that they can be charged with years in jail for struggling with the police. Americans don’t realize that they shouldn’t talk to police (without a good lawyer). Americans don’t realize that they should just be a rag doll during the arrest and take whatever beating the police dish out (the courts shield the police from your attacks legal or otherwise).

The arrest procedure IS the problem!
American stupidity (about arrest procedure and practice) IS the problem!

Obama had it right. The police are stupid and behave stupidly. Furthermore, the rest of America is stupid for wearing blinders for so long.

Americans have the duty to video all arrests. Video clips rule!