"The Polaris Singularity" published

I'm proud to announce the publication of my latest book "The Polaris Singularity", which is the sequel to "Omni Genesis".

You can see my published works online at ( http://bit.ly/GTSmith555 ). Though I have published several books already, I've been so focused on writing that I've neglected the promotional side of self-publishing. That must change. Please watch for me on the following sites:

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/gts555writer/home

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GTS555.writer

Twitter: https://twitter.com @GTS555writer

... and other media outlets to follow.

====

"The Polaris Singularity" synopsis:

The Polaris Singularity is an Artificial General Intelligence that has far surpassed human intelligence to become a Technological Singularity.  Dr. Kyle Downing has accepted the daunting task to teach such an intelligence about human morality, ethics, and law.

How does the Polaris Singularity relate to humans who are frequently irrational and illogical?  When confronted by the collapse of civilization and an increasingly lethal environment, will humanity be able to deal with the collapse and the Polaris Singularity, simultaneously?

Freedom and the Rule of Law

In an earlier post, I stated that it seems as though every day there is an atrocity committed by someone claiming “mental illness”, and I am sick of it.  “The devil made me do it” doesn’t cut it, folks.  This is a follow-up to that earlier post.

An example of what provoked me to write this post is the news that an Australian court found a mother 'not responsible' for killing eight children because she was of 'unsound mind' at the time.  This is absurd and outrageous (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-39777191).

It has been proposed that those who are judged to have committed crimes because of mental illness be “diverted” into treatment programs monitored by the court.  The problem with this position is that a crime must be committed before the diversion and treatment can be imposed - the damage to society has already been done.  Instead, society needs a way to intervene before the damage is done.

We can not (nor should we) attempt to legislate morality and ethics.  That would be impossible, anyway.  However, in our increasingly lawless society, we desperately need a return to the Rule of Law.

Freedom and the law are not incompatible nor mutually exclusive.  Indeed, they reinforce each other.  Where they fail to reinforce each other, both will fail.

One can not impose ones perceived freedoms, or lack of responsibility, upon anyone else.  Therefore, acts such as violence against persons or property, larceny, fraud, and vandalism would be examples of social taboos which restrict unbounded freedom.  The only place where unfettered freedom exists is in the solitary privacy of one's own home.

Laws are established by a free society to define the boundaries among society's members where there might otherwise be conflict over those boundaries.  Those laws must also be defined under the principle of 'minimalism'; that is, to define acceptable behavior with a minimum of stipulation upon all parties.  Without the principle of minimalism, fascism will result.  However, as behavior becomes more egregious (for example, aggravated assault to murder), the legal penalties must become increasingly consequential to the offender in order to enforce the rule of law.

It is important here to remind ourselves that laws are intended to be just and fair, created by reasonable legislators for the benefit of every person.  If the law is not just and fair, nor to the benefit of society and the individual, then the law must be changed.  It is our duty as citizens to ensure the integrity of the legislature and the judiciary.

Freedom means the approval to do whatever one wishes, as long as it doesn't infringe upon another person's freedom.  Our society is losing sight of this principle and, as a result, violence and lawlessness continues to increase to the degree that the rule of law is being ignored or is not enforced.

The point here is that, as a society, we are not being taught that actions have consequences and that one is responsible for one's actions.  Actions DO have consequences, and each person IS responsible for their actions - without exception or special dispensation.  If this truth is ignored, then the law must impose consequences upon those responsible for actions which are in violation of the law.

This notion that "mental illness" is an excuse, a "get out of jail free" card for actions against society, is not a valid defense.  If a defendant claims mental illness, then they must be removed from society (incarcerated or institutionalized).

Without the Rule of Law, we are doomed to repeat tragedy without end.  We will be left to deal with the consequences of others' actions, and the Rule of Law will become impotent.  This can not be allowed to happen.

There are only two alternatives: the Rule of Law, or Anarchy.

A Day At The Beach

Guns in Society

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated March 26, 2018.

--

I wrote the following blog soon after the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.  I have also sent it to the leaders of the House and Senate, and some news outlets.

Let me begin by saying that I am a political independent with opinions on both sides of any issue.  The issue of guns in society is a controversial one, and emotions run high on both sides.

There are many aspects to the issue - rights (to bear arms; the right to a gun-free environment), laws, background checks and mental stability, and many more.  It's immensely complicated, and there are no easy solutions on the grand scale.  But, the ultimate arbiter of the issue must be the law.

The Constitution's Second Amendment has been used (and abused) as the primary justification for gun ownership.  I have no problem with the right to own guns for hunting (rifles, shotguns) or self-defense (pistols).  But I do have a problem with assault weapons.  There can be no justification for anyone to own assault weapons, for the following reasons.

The Second Amendment defines "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."  That is, and officially recognized, state regulated militia.

Based on these terms and definitions, assault weapons have no justification outside of the National Guard (which holds such weapons in strictly controlled armories) or "well-regulated militia".

The National Guard trains its members on the proper handling of weapons, but also on the civil and legal aspects of their activities.  They attend drills one weekend per month, and a two-to-seven week block of field training annually.

Most states have established militias, though many are inactive.  All are under the direct command of the governor of the state in which they reside.  Seven states have no established militia.  Ohio's OHMR (Ohio Military Reserve), for example, is co-located with the National Guard units across the state.  Not all state militias provide weapons training, considering them to be cost prohibitive.  Nor do they all require any military training to join.  And, it is not clear whether their training includes the civil and legal aspects of their activities.

My point is that, where militias are concerned, they are not properly trained to act in military or emergency situations, nor are they required to pass comprehensive background checks (more on this later).  This is a recipe for disaster.  And, those who are not formally registered with a state militia have no standing, beyond the "catch all" definition of "every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia".  This is the loophole that could allow anyone to possess military weapons.  This loophole must be closed.

To rectify this situation, I would propose the following actions:

• All established state militias should be placed under the command of the National Guard at the state level.
• Recognized members of state militias should be thoroughly trained and licensed in the proper handling of weapons, and the civil and legal aspects of their authorized activities (i.e., police and emergency response types of action).
• Anyone not a member of the National Guard or the officially sanctioned state militia should not be permitted to purchase, transport, or reassign military equipment, defined as weapons that do not have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia".  Such weapons are to be kept in strictly controlled armories.
• Violations of these actions would be punishable by law.

These actions would go far to eliminate the carnage wrought by the many mass shootings that have taken place in recent years, yet still allow sportsmen to enjoy their sport, and for citizens to defend themselves under the law.

Background checks are another topic, and will be addressed in a separate article.  Suffice it to say that they are neither comprehensive nor in-depth.

Something must be done.  The time for inaction is long past.  Movements like #NeverAgain are gaining momentum.  It is up to the legislators (who must be held accountable) to pass responsible laws so that these incidents no longer continue.

A Search For Something Better

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated March 15, 2017.

--

Americans are more polarized now than I've ever seen them. I didn't think it could get any more polarized than it was when George W. Bush was in office, but here we are.

The political parties have become stereotyped into extreme positions from which they may never recover. Republicans are characterized as fascists, and Democrats are perceived as communists.  The actuality is that opinions on the many issues facing our country are not black-or-white, but a spectrum, stretching from one extreme to the other.  Like light passing through a prism, any single color blends into another with no boundary between them.

Having tired of the either-or of the major parties, the "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude, I went looking for an alternative.  I went looking for a "Moderate Party".  The theory was that moderates examine - FULLY examine - all aspects of an issue or policy, and make intelligent, informed decisions based on the factually corroborated information available.  Far from being wishy-washy non-committals, they are as passionate about the issues and policies as the staunchest Democrat or Republican, but are not afraid to pick-and-choose what they perceive as what's best for America and its people.  They are unconstrained by the Party Line.

What I found in my search was that Moderates can be as extreme-to-the-extreme as those they criticize.  Instead of intellectuals who engage in rational examination of an issue or policy, I found just as many irrational, reactionary, and ill-informed Moderates as I saw in the two major parties.

So, I guess you could call me non-aligned.  Better yet, call me Independent.  I will continue my rational examinations of issues and policies with regard to what is best for America, in order to make informed decisions based on the (factual, verifiable, and corroborated) information available to me.  Not as a wishy-washy non-committal, but as an activist working within the system in order to enact change, and to do so within the law.  For we must now and always remain a nation of laws.  If the laws don't work, let's change them, but do so within the framework of the law.

Let's do away with extremism, and work together.  Without debate and compromise, our system of government will fail.