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.

Bias in computer algorithms - the case for and against government regulation

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated March 7, 2017.

--

This blog is in response to an article on the TechRepublic on February 10, 2017

TechRepublic article:
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/biases-in-algorithms-the-case-for-and-against-government-regulation

Algorithms are almost always proprietary, for a variety of reasons (e.g., competitive advantage).  The same can be extrapolated to any source code of any system, engineering designs, new product development, and more.  If the algorithm is made Open Source, then the developer needs to understand that they forfeit their claim to that technology into the future.

It is incumbent upon the developer (and his employer) to ensure that the algorithm is correct, unbiased, and does what is advertised and only what is advertised, just as it is for any software application.

Algorithms SHOULD NOT be regulated.  The only alternative for the consumer is an escrow arrangement, in which the source code is maintained in an independent third-party facility (usually to be accessed only in the extreme case of business failure, or by court order).  This is expensive, cumbersome, and a maintenance nightmare, judged by many as not viable.  Examination and evaluation of algorithms under non-disclosure agreements are a weak alternative, and not enforceable in the long run.

Unless they are specifically Open Sourced, no company is going to open their algorithms for examination or regulation.  This would be tantamount to giving away the "Keys to the Kingdom".

Sorry state of Journalism today

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated February 12, 2017.

--

A recent article by Todd Richmond of the Associated Press is one (of many) illustrations of the sorry state of journalism today ("Wisconsin lawmakers want to make the sun set earlier in the summer"; Friday, February 10).

Let's begin by addressing the primary issue with such reporting.  Journalists have an obligation to report the news impartially, unbiased by their own beliefs.  If they choose to pontificate on any issue, whether for or against, then they should not call it journalism - it's simply that person's opinion.

In the article, Mr. Richmond stated the impossible proposition that legislators can determine when the sun rises or sets.  Specifically, the debate and controversy in this case is over DST, or Daylight Savings Time.  I'm not alone in the opinion that DST is a ludicrous artifice of humans to "fool" themselves into believing that the sun rises and sets on their dictum.  The sun will rise and set of its own accord, without any help from humans, as it has for billions of years.  "High noon" will always be high noon (that is, when the sun is at its zenith) regardless of our irrational declaration otherwise.

The number of hours of daylight at the winter solstice will always be significantly less than the number of hours of daylight at the summer solstice.  Since we already have more daylight during the summer (naturally!), why artificialize it by moving clocks forward an additional hour?  It makes no sense.

If an individual or group of people choose to rise or retire at an earlier or later time of the celestial day, then they merely have to set their alarm clocks an hour earlier or later, rather than artificially impose the ridiculous concept of DST upon large population segments of the world.  Obviously, I am in favor of eliminating DST.

Let's bring responsibility back to journalism, and refrain from stating opinions as fact.

Violence and the Mental Illness Excuse

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated November 6, 2017.

--

Re: "A Separate Justice System for the Mentally Ill?"
Ozy.com; Daily Dose; Jan. 5, 2017; Libby Coleman

http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/a-separate-justice-system-for-the-mentally-ill/74505?utm_source=dd&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=01052017&variable=e65694d331035292eae700e2949ce2c6

I must respond to the article noted above.  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.

If "no one in their right mind" would commit heinous crimes like mass murder, the implication is that all of those offenders suffer from mental illness.  Should we then excuse these behaviors, diverting them to "safe harbors" for "treatment" only after the act?

This question raises a corrollary query: Should every person be screened for deviant behavior, so that they can be removed from society before such deviant acts can be committed?  Should they be quarantined, removed from "normal" society and prevented from owning a car or truck, a gun, sharp objects, or anything else that can be used as a weapon?  Of course, such a suggestion is, itself, insane.

What is "deviant" behavior anyway, if there is no longer a "normal"?  Who determines what is normal, and by what criteria?  The very idea of any external person or entity making such a judgement is repugnant.

The result of the inability to prevent deviant behavior until such acts are proven to be imminent, based upon evidence which qualifies under jurisprudence, is that we are doomed to the reactionary stance of dealing with the aftermath of these acts.

Mankind has committed acrocities against mankind since the beginning of time.  Are we to turn the other cheek, forgive and forget, and move on?  Contrary to most religious beliefs, this is an unrealistic solution which would only lead to an increasingly rapid decline in civilization, and the ultimate destruction of society.  However, neither will the problem be solved by resorting to vengeance - "an eye for an eye" justice.

Until recent history, criminals at a capital level were terminated with prejudice.  Today, we have swung to the other extreme, excusing such acts as the result of mental illness.  There can be no excuse for capital crimes, no “get out of jail free” card.


We are left with the quandary of how to prevent such behavior, or dealing with the equally unacceptable, but inevitable, consequences.

Daylight Savings Time - NO

Daylight Saving Time is ridiculous.  All of the world's technology (everything touched by computers) runs on UTC time, which is the time standard around the wold.  Are we in the U.S. so arrogant as to expect the rest of the world - and all technology everywhere - to accommodate our denial of true time?  Absurd!

Today's Quote

"Only the simple-minded believe that there are simple answers to complex issues."

Excerpt from "Balance of Force"  http://bit.ly/GTSmith555

The Challenge of Poetry

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated December 5, 2016.

--

As a writer, poetry is a most challenging endeavor.  However, not all poetry is good poetry.  The classic rules of meter, rhyme, and structure are ignored in much of the writing today.  While the classic forms of poetry should not shackle the writer, neither should they be ignored.  Free-form has its place, but writing without some modicum of discipline is often just print on a page – in fact, the lack of form and structure often detracts from the writing.

Excerpt from "Poet of the Park", which can be found at:

http://bit.ly/GTSmith555

Book Launch - Balance of Force

I'm in the process of moving my blogs to Google's Blogsite.  The following post was originally dated November/December 2016.

--

My book "Balance of Force" is finally available on Amazon at http://bit.ly/GTSmith555.  I hope that you will enjoy it as much as I enjoyed writing it!

Bryce Campbell had always wanted to be a sailor on the high seas, until he narrowly escaped death at the hands of pirates.  Now, he is fighting back the only way he knows how - by taking the fight to them.

Regarding Gun Control and Mental Illness

I have three problems with the MSN.COM news article, "After Trump blames mental illness for mass shootings, health agencies ordered to hold all posts on issue" (08-20-2019).  See the links below for the online article.

First, this smacks of dictatorial behavior, denying first amendment rights.  Science should not be prohibited from publishing research, as long as it is based upon hard data and fact, and not innuendo.

Second, the idea that "mental illness" is an excuse for unacceptable behavior is ridiculous.  I wrote a blog piece on this (https://gtsmith5x4.blogspot.com/2017/11/violence-and-mental-illness-excuse.html).  If "mental illness" is so obvious that it indicates an imminent threat, then those persons should absolutely not be able to acquire guns or any other weapon.

Third, while "see something, say something" is valid, the "red flag" suggestion raises some very serious issues.  The intent of a "red flag" is to bring a potential threat to the attention of the authorities, who will then investigate and take the appropriate action.  However, it will ALWAYS be true that one is innocent until proven guilty.  Being accused of "red flag" behavior should never be a permanent mark against a person in some file somewhere if it proves to be false.  And, like "swatting", it should never be used to harass the innocent.

There are some very significant questions and issues that need to be resolved around the issues of gun control.  Foremost among them is the re-establishment of personal responsibility for one's actions.

https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAG4MYk?m=en-us&a=1

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/after-trump-blames-mental-illness-for-mass-shootings-health-agencies-ordered-to-hold-all-posts-on-issue/ar-AAG4MYk

Balance of Force update - Nebula Files

With the coronavirus isolation protocol in place, I'm getting some time to work on the sequel to "Balance of Force", a story of piracy and survival.  I'm currently on the first draft, but it's coming together very well.  Watch my social networking for updates.

Author's Blog:  http://gts555writer.blogspot.com

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

Twitter:  @GTS555writer

Stay well, stay safe.

Should free speech be limited?

Freedom does not grant anyone the right or privilege to impinge upon the rights of others. That being said, free speech is SEVERELY ABUSED by lies, deceit, fraud, racism, and similar abuses.

Free speech should not be limited. However, those who perpetrate the abuse of free speech must be held accountable.

If one encounters the abuse of free speech, one should call "BS" on the perpetrator. Freedom also means that a citizen must take responsibility for protecting the RESPONSIBLE exercise of our freedoms.

The anonymity of the internet makes it difficult to shame or prosecute such abusers, and many abusers have no shame so shaming them would have no affect.

In the end, there may not be a solution to the abuse of free speech.

An alternative to the electoral college

There is an alternative to the electoral college.

In order to retain the concept of a Federal Republic, this alternative would to tally the voting results by state, with each state's popular vote determining that state's choice of candidate.  The candidate with the most states would win the election.  In the improbable event of a tie, then the National Popular Vote (NPV) would decide the winner.

This alternative eliminates the electoral process, while sustaining the Federal Republic and ensuring a more democratic result.

Technology - a two-edged sword

When it comes to technology I tell everyone I know that "IT'S A TWO-EDGED SWORD"!

While the benefits can be immense, the potential for harm is at least as great.  Not that these technologies should not be pursued, but that safeguards must be built in from the initial concept - something that is NOT being done today.  In the rush to be the 'first to market', diligence to safeguards is frequently sacrificed.

So, embrace technology, but don't go blindly into the future.  Ensure that the safeguards are foolproof, and that they are one step ahead of those who would use that technology for harm, because they will.

On AI Self-proliferation

It would not seem rational for an AI to arbitrarily create other AIs. Instead, it would most likely expand its own capacity/capabilities.

Having said that, I don't doubt that other human entities (i.e., countries) will also create AIs, in which case the AIs will have to adapt to deal with each other.

I am writing about an AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) that achieves Technological Singularity, and some of the issues that are encountered when we (humans) try to teach the AGI about Ethics (in the general sense).  The more I learn, the more fascinating and challenging it becomes.

Another day at the beach ... I wish!