Some Thoughts on Restitution in a Free Society by graham gambier

Restitution

Some thoughts on restitution in a free society

In online discussions I have had where restitution has been mentioned as an appropriate response to acts of aggression, correspondents first deny that you can place a monetary value on acts of violence against the person, then they point out that, even if you could, a wealthy man would find any fixed scale of monetary restitution relatively less onerous to pay than a poor man would, and that this is inherently unfair.

Another objection correspondents raise is the paltry sum a victim might receive if the perpetrator was only able to afford, say, $10 per week.

Having read libertarian literature on this subject, I am persuaded that restitution is a more appropriate response to violence than retribution and, while not original, my response goes something like:

Protection policies will likely be insurance based where the purchaser decides on a level of cover, so will chose values acceptable to themselves for various events such as rape, assault, murder etc.. I cannot predict what the market might choose as appropriate restitution for e.g. rape, that will be a process of market discovery. That is part of the beauty and strength of markets as opposed to command systems. 

It is the insurer who is likely to pay out to the victim, the level of compensation pre-chosen and paid for by the victim, not the perpetrator, leaving the insurer to recover what costs it can from the perpetrator. 

To the extent that insurers can recover costs from perpetrators, policy premiums will be lower than they would be otherwise. 

Where customers choose retribution based policies, the insurer will recover fewer costs if the perpetrator is incarcerated or killed and will bear the additional cost of any incarceration, so premiums will be higher than they would otherwise. 

Because of the above, let's suppose that retribution based policy premiums are twice that of restitution based policy premiums (who knows what the actual multiple would be?). Purchasers would face the decision, "Do I receive X compensation for Y premium with the perpetrator working to pay for his crime literally, or do I receive the same X compensation but for 2Y premium because the perpetrator is locked up (or X/2 compensation for Y premium)?" Individuals will make this choice for themselves. 

Any of us could face being found guilty of aggression against persons or property at some point and will face the consequences of the market choice between restitution and retribution based protection policies if we are. Which would you rather face, restitution, or retribution? How would your preference for treatment as a perpetrator colour your market choice as a victim? Do unto others etc..

A point that has only recently occurred to me, and has not yet made it into the above, is that any decision to purchase a restitution or retribution based policy will likely be made in cold blood, and at a time when finance is comparatively more important than vengeance. After a person has become a victim of violence it may well be that vengeance is uppermost in their mind, but, likely as not, this will not be when their purchasing decision is made.

But the problem of the relative ease with which a wealthy man might discharge his debt to his victim still bothers me.

An unrelated post proposed that, (ignoring state welfare payments) as income comes from labour, a given sum of your money could be said to represent that portion of your life spent earning it.

That got me thinking about the potentially unfair restitution problem.

Theoretically, our current retribution based response to say, rape, would be to incarcerate both the wealthy man and the poor man for an equal period (we all know how the wealthy receive equal treatment to the poor in adversarial state courts, right?).

However, if they did receive equal time for the same crime, the loss of earnings for the wealthy man would likely exceed that of the poor man.

So, perhaps, instead of a monetary scale becoming the market price for a given aggression against a person, a time-based scale could become the norm instead.

If you think about it, this has a concordance with retribution based justice in that, say, a rapist could pay the equivalent of ten years income while a murderer might pay the equivalent of twenty years income.

Then, another thought occurred to me. As mentioned above, protection policy premiums will be affected by the insurer's ability to recover costs from perpetrators, and, as most people will be paying protection policy premiums you could argue that any inability by insurers to recover costs from perpetrators is a societal cost (yes, that phrase makes me wince too).

Total case costs for the insurer will comprise their costs of detection, evidence gathering etc., and case preparation and presentation costs, plus any restitution payment to their customer (or their estate). Therefore, total premiums will comprise the insurer's general administration costs and any unrecovered total case costs.

Under a time-based restitution system insurers might be able to recover moneys from some perpetrators in excess of total case costs and these moneys could be applied to reduce premiums for all, so, not only would the playing field be levelled, away from the wealthy, but ‘society’ would benefit too.

There may be an additional advantage to such a system. Even under an inherently more fair free-market restitution based justice system (if you will forgive the term, system), the wealthy are still likely to afford higher standards of protection than the poor, and, as higher premiums afford higher quality advocates, this creates a disincentive to insurers of poor victims pursuing wealthy perpetrators. If, however, their revenue from pursuing a wealthy perpetrator enables them to afford a higher cost advocate to handle the case, then the scales of justice might not be tipped so far in favour of the wealthy perpetrator.

I have nothing at all against the wealthy (I wish I was amongst their number), and I harbour no feelings of resentment or thoughts of entitlement to the same goods and services that are available to them in any other field than justice. The very word justice connotes that all human beings are equal and in this field, and this field alone, a wealthy man must not be permitted to gain the advantage.

I am not a scholar, an intellectual, or a philosopher, and, while there may be valid moral or philosophical arguments against such a suggestion as this (and they would be of interest to me), I must remind critics that any free society will not be governed by intellectuals (it won’t be governed, period), it will run itself strictly according to the dictates of the market. It is not theorists, therefore, that will approve such a scheme as this, but ordinary people, unskilled and unschooled in libertarian thought, who will purchase such a product from an entrepreneur (should it be offered) and they see fit.

If this idea is not original I apologise to its developer and state sincerely that I have not come across it elsewhere.


graham gambier

The Collective - A short play by graham gambier

The Collective

A short play by graham gambier

THE SCENE:

The scene takes place in a drab meeting hall with a dais.

Tom, Dick, Harry, Jack, and Jill are in the audience, ‘the convenor’ occupies the dais.

MAIN ACT:

[The convenor stands and clears his throat]

CONVENOR: Thank you, brothers and sister, for attending this meeting of The Workers Union this evening to make a collective decision on the important issue of Proposition X.

As you know, Proposition X will affect all members of The Workers Union so it is essential that we make our collective decision properly.

Let’s start by calling the role.

Tom?

TOM: Here.

CONVENOR: Dick?

DICK: Aye.

CONVENOR: Bill?

[Silence]

CONVENOR: Anyone know where Bill is?

[Heads shake]

CONVENOR: Harry?

HARRY: Here.

CONVENOR: Jack?

JACK: Present.

CONVENOR: Ernie?

TOM: Ernie had to go to a meeting at his kid’s school. He sends his apologies.

CONVENOR: No problem. Jill?

JILL: Here.

CONVENOR: Bill and Ernie are missing, but we have enough people to make a collective decision.

Ok! Will the collective please identify itself.

[Puzzlement and confusion]

DICK: Errr! We are the collective.

CONVENOR: Who is, you Dick?

DICK: [Sheepishly] Not just me. Tom, Harry, Jill, we’re all the collective.

CONVENOR: OK! I see what you’re saying. You, Dick, you’re not the collective, right?

DICK: No.

CONVENOR: What about you, Tom, are you the collective?

TOM: No.

CONVENOR: Harry?

HARRY: Not me mate.

CONVENOR: Jill.

JILL: Nope.

CONVENOR: Shit! It appears that the collective couldn’t bother it’s backside to turn up for an important decision like Proposition X. Oh! well. Meeting dismissed.

[Agitation and discussion]

DICK: Proposition X is important to all of us. Me ‘n’ Harry were just saying why can’t we all make our own decision? As individuals, like.

[Nods of agreement]

CONVENOR: Anyone disagree with Dick?

[Heads shake]

CONVENOR: Right! I’ll ask each of you in turn whether you are in favour of Proposition X.

Tom?

TOM: Aye.

CONVENOR: Dick?

DICK: Aye.

CONVENOR: Harry?

HARRY: Not really sure, mate. I suppose so.

CONVENOR: Is that an Aye or a Ney, Harry?

HARRY: Errr! Aye, I suppose.

CONVENOR: Jack?

JACK: Nay. Absolutely not. If youse all adopt this ridiculous garbage it’s a game changer for me, mate. I’m out.

CONVENOR: Steady, Jack. Don’t blow a gasket.

Jill?

JILL: Aye.

CONVENOR: I make that Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jill for Proposition X and Jack against. Everyone agree?

[Murmurs of approval]

CONVENOR: Ok! I hereby declare Proposition X adopted as official policy of The Workers Union.

JACK: This is total bollocks! As I said, I’m out.

CONVENOR: I’m truly sorry you feel like that Jack. After all you’ve done for the union you’ll be sorely missed I can tell you.

Don’t be hasty Jack. All your comrades think it’s a good idea. They can’t all be wrong, can they?

JACK: You know I love these guys, but I just can’t live with Proposition X, I’m better off out. Anyway, where do you get off saying I’m hasty, I’ve given it loads of thought you tosser.

CONVENOR: OK! OK! Jack. Keep yer hair on, mate. If you’re determined to go, we can’t stop you. OK! lads, can we have a show of appreciation for Jack.

[All stand and applaud. Jack stands and heads for the exit]

HARRY: We still on for football Saturday, Jack?

JACK: Wouldn’t miss it, mate.

EXIT JACK STAGE RIGHT

CONVENOR: OK! comrades. Shame about the bloody collective eh? But, we seem to have done OK without it.

Any other business?

JILL: My brother-in-law, Tim, says he only never joined the union because we didn’t have anything like Proposition X in place. He might be interested now. Is it OK if I bring him along to our next general meeting.

CONVENOR: Sounds grand to me, Jill. Yeh! bring him along.

I declare this meeting of The Workers Union closed.

[All stand and head towards the exit]

CONVENOR: Anyone fancy a pint?

CURTAIN CLOSES

On the claim that satellites are too close to Earth to take proper photos of the Earth.

Are satellites too close to Earth to take proper photos of the Earth?

The Internet is awash with articles about how few, if any, proper photos of the Earth have been taken from space.

The argument goes that we have launched some 10,000 satellites, launched many shuttle missions, have journeyed to the moon several times, have launched many probes into the Solar System, and have a permanently manned ISS, but no real photos.

What do they mean by 'no real photos'?

Well, if you Google "Earth from Space" you will see hundreds of images, but there is a problem with them. 

There appear to be two categories of images of Earth from Space published. The first is the ubiquitous Apollo 17 shot. Apparently taken on the way to the Moon at a distance of some 100,000 miles.

Apollo 17 Full Earth Photo

Note the distinctive cloud pattern centre image, just below the equator. This image appears in many places, sometimes 'as is' and sometimes edited.

The second category appears to be 'composite images' i.e. NOT actual photos. It is claimed that all NASA images other than the Apollo 17 'photo' are composite images and are labelled as such.

A "Blue Marble" image of the Earth taken from the VIIRS instrument aboard NASA's most recently launched Earth-observing satellite, Suomi NPP. This composite image uses a number of swaths of the Earth's surface taken on Jan. 4, 2012.

Credit: NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring

NASA explains how this image was constructed from strip images taken by instruments on this Earth Orbiting Satellite (EOS) flying at 833 km. 

Apparently, NASA claims that there are no non-composite images of the Earth from Space because satellites fly too close to the Earth to take a full-frame photo, so, all they can do is to stitch together the strip images that are taken as satellites orbit the Earth.

I have a problem with that explanation - not all instruments orbit the Earth and some satellites fly much higher.

My comments:

I have a £125 smartphone incorporating a 15mp camera. The device is not primarily a camera so let's be generous and say that I have a £100 camera (about $150USD at the time of writing). NASA probably has better equipment than me, so, if I can do something I guess that NASA can do at least as well.

My wife is about two metres tall and I asked her to stand in our kitchen while I focussed on her with the above £100 camera. She was full-frame at about two full paces away. So, at approximately two metres distance an approximately two-metre tall woman was full-frame in a cheap camera.

Using basic geometry, if I draw a triangle with base equal to height the units of measurement are irrelevant, the shape and the angles will remain the same regardless.

If I draw a triangle with base = height = 200 cm

or base = height = 443 m

or base = height = 12,756 km

or base = height = umpteen gazillion km

it makes no difference. Therefore, a picture taken at any distance should display a subject whose height/width is the same measurement as that distance as a full-frame image.

First I Googled "What is the diameter of the Earth" and one of the results follows:

Excerpt from About.com Geography at http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzdiameter.htm

What is the diameter of the earth?
The diameter of the earth at the equator is 7,926.41 miles (12,756.32 kilometers).
But, if you measure the earth through the poles the diameter is a bit shorter - 7,901 miles (12,715.43 km). Thus, the earth is a tad wider (25 miles / 41 km) than it is tall, giving it a slight bulge at the equator. This shape is known as an ellipsoid or more properly, geoid (earth-like).

Then I Googled "How high are satellites above the Earth" and one of the results follows:

Excerpt from Yahoo Answers at https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110825150456AARMUVC

How much miles above Earth are satellites?
Best Answer:  Depends on the satellite (and the right phrasing is "how MANY miles are satellites above the Earth").
Low Earth Orbit satellites are up to about 2000 km (Americans still use miles, so you will have to do your own conversion). All human orbital spaceflights have been here, the ISS orbits here.
Medium Earth Orbits are from 2000 km to about 35800 km. This is where GPS satellites are, as well as communication satellites (like Telstar).
High Earth Orbits are above 35800 km. This is where military satellites tend to be.

CONCLUSION:

My £100 camera should have no trouble taking a full-frame photo of Earth from an altitude from 13,000km or greater.

Therefore, while my camera would probably struggle to take a full-frame photo of the 13,000km Earth from a 2,000km altitude LEO satellite it should have no problem taking a satisfactory photo from some MEO satellites and all HEO satellites.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

(1) NASA purchases my £100 camera for, say, £200 (a man's gotta live, right?) and installs it on the next HEO or suitable MEO and then sends back some stunning, 15mp, full-colour, full-frame, photos of our Earth. Simples!

(2) NASA supplies the ISS crew with a slightly more sophisticated camera than mine, and maybe splash out on a wide angle lens. I reckon that a budget of several hundreds of £££ might be required, but I am told that they have deep pockets.

(3) You try all the above for yourself and don't just take my word for it.

Is Britain being overrun by Jihadis posing as refugees?

You may recall that when the Eastern European states joined the EU that the press widely reported that, unlike for non-EU residents, the UK had no powers to stop the free movement of goods and people. The UK has NO OBLIGATION to admit non-EU residents and has strict policies on admitting economic migrants with each case being examined individually on its merits.

There are special processes for dealing with refugees under international law. Refugees are required to apply individually for refugee status and are sometimes held in special detention centres while their claims are being investigated with those whose claims are rejected being deported. Most refugees are from countries that the UK is not actively bombing, or supporting bombing, yet this is how they are treated. How, logically, would we treat refugees from a country we ARE actively bombing, or supporting bombing, when we have the legislation in place to detain them?

Ask any policeman how consistent witness statements are for any incident. Stories about incidents are all over the place with witnesses reporting different numbers of perps, different clothes, height, hair colour, weapons etc. In short, if every witness is telling the same story the police are usually suspicious and suspect collusion. Similarly, any normal event, such as a speech, policy proposal, or change in the law, or benefits etc. is reported wildly differently in the media yet, as far as I can tell, all the media are telling THE SAME STORY about the 'refugee crisis'.

Question. If Poles and Lithuanians came to Britain for a better life without being bombed, would not some innocent Syrians choose a better life in Britain after they had been bombed out of their own country? Where are the media stories about them? They must exist. 

Also, much is made of men of fighting age forming a proportion of the migrants. In conflict zones, young men of fighting age are conscripted against their will to fight for one side or the other (Google 'Ukraine conscription'). I might leave my country if it was being bombed and I would certainly pack my son off pretty sharpish to a safer environment if there was a danger of him being forced to die for someone else's cause, especially ISIS's. So, invasion by Jihadis is not the only possible explanation for the presence of young men in the migrant numbers. Has the media presented any other explanation?

After 7/7 the UK government used peoples' understandable fears to enact legislation such as The Terrorism Act and RIPA to take away our liberties and increase government powers. After all, as they say, "No good disaster should go unexploited". The UK government, who have no obligation to do so whatsoever, are apparently letting in foreign persons from a war zone we are participating in without checks, then, their tame media mouthpieces all trumpet the dire warnings of impending doom. Nothing to see here... right?

The UK has no grounds to attack Syria or to support such an attack and such an attack has little popular support. If the UK population perceive themselves as in danger because they are told that they are being flooded by dangerous Jihadis, any plan to invade Syria and create 'safe zones' where the migrants could be deported safely to WOULD receive popular support. How convenient that these scare stories could change popular opinion in favour of the government's already expressed policy.

Am I the only one who finds all this a little odd?

Is my freedom contingent on others? - An essay by Graham Gambier

Is my freedom contingent on others?

An essay on freedom by Graham Gambier

I was reading a blog post the other day on the subject of freedom but, while I agreed with most of what the author had to say, I was troubled by his assertion that freedom was the absence of coercion and that, some day, we may attain that happy state.

I was initially unsure as to why this definition of freedom disturbed me, but I am learning to trust my instincts and sleeping on it produced the following thoughts.

Firstly, I Googled the subject to check the blogger’s assertion and Merriam-Webster had this to say, which seemed to support the blogger:

freedom
noun free·dom \ˈfrē-dəm\
1
:  the quality or state of being free: as
a :  the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b :  liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another :  independence
c: …

My problem with these definitions of freedom is that they seem to make my freedom dependent on the actions (or lack thereof) of others. If this is indeed the case, then I must either beg seven billion plus people for my freedom, rely on their innate goodness, or be prepared to fight all of them for it. None of these options appeal to me.

Oliver Twist begging scene

Analysis

If a coercive act by you means that I am not free, then you control my freedom, and, perversely vice versa. This is both illogical and unacceptable. If a man can grant me my freedom, he can take it away, and I am still not free.

Ever since I adopted anarchism I have proclaimed to the world that I have no masters, but more importantly, I have integrated this statement into my being. This condition has led me to post comments such as the following about taxation:

“A mugger in the park may demand my property under the threat of violence, but that does not mean that he has a right to my property. Similarly, a man calling himself a government official might demand my property, but he has no more right to my property than the mugger.”

In my opinion, being threatened by a thug does not make me unfree. Whether I choose to give him my property, run away, or stand and fight, I will still be exercising my free-will.

If no man has rights over my property, including my life, then the corollary must be that I have no obligations to any man and, therefore, I must be free. Similarly, if no man can legitimately issue me orders then I am already free.

My definition of freedom is, therefore, the recognition by yourself that you are free to exercise your free-will in all circumstances and that you are obligated to no man.

This definition of freedom means that ‘involuntary servitude’, or slavery, is impossible. At all times, and in all places, you are entirely free to choose to obey the will of another, or run away, or fight, to the death if needs be. This, for me, is the true meaning of the quote attributed to Patrick Henry “Give me liberty, or give me death”. I do not believe that Henry meant ‘grant’ me liberty but ‘respect’ my liberty.

If my definition of liberty is indeed true, why then do dictionaries define it as “the absence of coercion”, like Merriam-Webster above?

As has been noted in many posts dictionaries do not define words, they simply record popular usage. Therefore, it is the masses that see their freedom as contingent on others i.e. the masses do not accept or believe that they are already free, and it is this lack of confidence that is being reported by dictionaries.

For completeness, and not to sound belligerent, I couldn’t care less whether you agree with my definition of freedom or not. It is how I understand freedom and, as it does not aggress against you in any way, you can have no legitimate interest in it.

If, however, you accept the dictionary definition of freedom, and do believe that you are beholden to others for your freedom (or anything else), then you may want to critically examine your anarchy.

Conclusion

Freedom is the acknowledgement by yourself that you are free to exercise your free-will in all circumstances and that you are obligated to no man.

You are free the moment that you meaningfully declare yourself to be so.

The task facing those who would be anarchists is to accept and embrace their pre-existing freedom, to cherish it, and to take responsibility for it.

The task facing anarchists is not to fight others to give the masses freedom, but to convince individuals that they are already free. Once sufficient individuals embrace their freedom, governing the remainder will become untenable.

Is Life Really as Complicated as it Seems? - An essay by graham gambier

Is Life Really as Complicated as it Seems?

An essay by graham gambier

It is sometimes held that truth is a slippery critter and hard to pin down and thus, life is complicated. I, however, disagree and maintain that truth is personal and simple and can be determined by a six-year-old.

In this essay, I will present a fictional scenario that many adults will recognise, either through personal experience, or simply by being adults in the modern world. Then, I will ask some questions about the scenario that, when considered, might make it seem even more complicated. Lastly, I will attempt to deconstruct this scenario and present it as a six-year-old might see it, and hopefully you will agree, as it really is.

The Scenario

I was sitting on my sofa, watching the news on my television when I heard a noise at my front door, so I went to investigate.

As I entered my hallway I espied the postman retreating round the corner of my building and noticed a letter lying on the doormat. Wondering what the postman had delivered, I picked the letter up and started to tear it open as I returned to my living room.

To my dismay, it was a letter from the Tax Authority stating that they had re-assessed me and that I now owed them considerably more than I had calculated.

In my agitated state I lost interest in any continued appraisal of the state of world affairs so I switched off my television and decided to go for a drive in my car.

I drove out of town and headed for the highway. Once on the highway I ‘opened her up’ and enjoyed the freedom of the open road which served as a temporary distraction from my financial worries.

Unfortunately, my distraction extended to failing to notice the speed limit, or the highway patrol vehicle strategically placed behind a large roadside advertising board.

The highway patrol vehicle pulled onto the road behind me and quickly caught up with my car and, by sounding his siren, flashing his lights, and motioning with his arm, the highway patrol officer ordered me to pull over.

The highway patrol officer came up to my window and demanded to see my papers. He asked me if I knew why he had stopped me and I apologised for my excessive speed.

The highway patrol officer proceeded to write me a ticket and informed me that, because I was a specified amount over the speed limit, he had no choice but to remand me to appear before a magistrate for sentencing.

My next letter was even more distressing than the tax demand as it summonsed me to court a few months hence under pain of dire consequences should I fail in my duty to attend.

On the day of my hearing, I carefully showered and dressed myself so as to demonstrate my acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation and hopefully show my normalcy and my respect for the court.

The whole proceeding went better than I had feared. I went where I was directed, I stood and sat when I was directed, I swore an oath on the Bible,  I was polite and respectful and answered all their questions as best as I could.

Because I freely admitted my guilt and showed contrition the magistrate chose to be lenient with me and imposed the minimum penalty permitted.

The combination of the tax assessment and the motoring fine will make it hard for me to find the required money and I may have to sell my car to fund it. I have calculated that my car is worth enough to pay off the purchase loan and still have enough left over to purchase an older vehicle that will still get me to my place of employment.

Some questions about the scenario

Things that you can directly experience with your senses contain truth - everything else is a mental construct, a fiction, a story about the truth containing thing.

Let us now examine the scenario portrayed above line-by-line and see what questions arise that may indicate the presence a mental construct overlaying the truth.

>>I was sitting on my sofa<<

The bodily position described as ‘sitting’ is trivial, although it nicely demonstrates the difference between truth and a concept. The term sitting covers a wide range of limb angles and heights and might be thought of as some non-standing position where one's bottom provides significant support. What about lying down, or reclining back at a shallow angle, or basically standing but resting your bottom on something like a wall. Are these species of the creature, ‘sitting’? If I say I was sitting on my sofa this only conjures up an image in your imagination of what this might have looked like had you been a direct observer, not reality, thus for you, my ‘sitting’ is a concept, not truth.

>>watching the news on my television<<

Watching

There is little doubt that I was watching something because I was using my eyes, although I could have had my eyes pointed in the direction of the television without conscious attention to its images. I was probably using my ears also, so ‘watching the news’ may be an inadequate description of my action unless I had the volume turned down. Did I?

The News

What is ‘news’? Was I observing what the broadcaster claimed was ‘the news’, or a piece of ‘infotainment’, or a section of a movie that contained a representation of ‘the news’? How factual is ‘the news’? What story is being portrayed by the ‘news’ piece? Who decided that this story was ‘news’ rather than a million other possible stories? What is the broadcaster’s intent in presenting this story in this way? What adjectives are being used to describe the scenes and persons presented? How do the images, sounds, and narrative presented make you feel about the places, organisations, persons, and actions portrayed in the story?

An example may help here. Say that your television shows an image of two men, with beards, wearing similar clothing, carrying weapons, speaking an unintelligible foreign language, and situated in some foreign looking land. What is truth here? The truth is that there are two men in the camera shot. There is a good chance that they are men because they have beards though it is possible (if unlikely) that they are children or women in costume, you should use your judgement on this. The men are wearing clothing that appears similar to you. The men are carrying what appears to be weapons. There is a voice speaking a foreign language that is unintelligible to you coming from the television. The scene appears to be situated in a setting that looks foreign to you.

Are these two men being displayed in an appropriate context? What would you have seen five minutes earlier, or five minutes later, or if the camera panned left or right, or if the camera zoomed in or out? Have they been captured in their daily lives or are they posed? What does the narration claim; that they are of the same tribe, the same security force, the same terrorist group? Does it describe them as defenders, or aggressors, allies or enemies? Is the scene in the geographical location claimed? Is the scene part of the event claimed? Is the scene from the timeframe claimed? Is the scene stock footage? Is the scene studio footage? Is the voice the voice of the person claimed? Is any translation provided accurate?

I cannot think of anything more susceptible to bias, context, and agenda than that which is presented by the media as news and portrayed as truth.

The media contribute greatly to the confusion and apparent complexity of the world.  If the media told the truth, governments would castigate them and sponsors wouldn’t advertise with them so prices would rise with a consequent loss of business.

On my television

Is it really ‘my’ television? It is certainly ‘a’ television, but is it mine?

Property is a concept. At this juncture, I can imagine the cries of outrage as libertarians quit reading this essay in anger.

Let me clarify by stating that I am a libertarian and hold Lockean/Rothbardian views on property rights but they are just that - views - not truth or reality. Queue outrage, take two.

Females of my acquaintance are want to refer to everything as ‘my’ this, and ‘my’ that, though, of course, the phenomenon is not solely limited to females.

In the libertarian tradition one obtains valid title to property via acts of original appropriation from nature, the fruits of one’s labour, or by exchange, and one can tell if one owns something by determining if one has the RIGHT to use it or not as one pleases, to dispose of it through exchange or gifting as one pleases, or to destroy it if one pleases.

Examples of when you might not truthfully refer to something as ‘my’ thing include: when it is under joint ownership with a spouse or partner, or owned by your business or employer, or it is subject to a finance agreement, or it is rented.

Ownership is a concept, rather than a provable fact as philosophers would espouse, because philosophy is a mental construct, however logically and convincingly it is conceived and the esteem in which it is held. Imagine, if you will, a toddler playing with a toy. That toddler may demonstrate by his actions that he believes that the toy is his, however, he did not homestead it, produce it, or exchange for it. His parent(s) may consider that they retain title and that he is using it on license, or that they gifted it to his sibling, or that his sibling holds it on license, or any other arrangement you may imagine. And that is my point, imagination, all the arrangements listed above exist only in the imagination of the perceiver. To that child, at that time, that toy is his. Who amongst us is qualified to state that he is wrong?

>>when I heard a noise at my front door, so I went to investigate<<

After what delay did I investigate? I heard a noise, but how much would I be willing to bet that it was from some action involving the door of my dwelling?

>>As I entered my hallway I espied the postman retreating round the corner of my building<<

I espied a human being wearing a particular style or colour of clothing, how sure was I that his profession was postman? Why do I describe his locomotion as retreating? Is the building my property?

>>and noticed a letter lying on the doormat. Wondering what the postman had delivered, I picked the letter up and started to tear it open as I returned to<<

How do I know that the person I designated as a postman delivered this letter? If the person I saw was indeed a postman, could it have been another postman walking to or from his place of employment? Was it delivered earlier without me perceiving it? Did a Tax Authority official deliver it? Was it left with a neighbour in error who then delivered it.

>>my living room<<

Property rights again, coupled with the notion of the designation of a room.

>>To my dismay, it was a letter from the Tax Authority stating that they had re-assessed me and that I now owed them considerably more than I had calculated<<

Why was I dismayed? Am I just predisposed to dismay at any communication with the Tax Authority? Was I dismayed that amount was so high but otherwise believed that they had the RIGHT to demand it from me? Was I dismayed that the amount was so small? Did I consider the calculation was in error? Was I dismayed that another person would consider that they had some RIGHT to make such demands of me? Is there any such thing as authority?

>>In my agitated state I lost interest in any continued appraisal of the state of world affairs so I switched off my television and decided to go for a drive in my car<<

See above my thoughts on whether the ‘news’ is capable or likely to perform such a function and, once again, consider property rights. It is entirely valid for me to report my own feelings and the context seems clear.

>>I drove out of town and headed for the highway. Once on the highway I ‘opened her up’ and enjoyed the freedom of the open road which served as a temporary distraction from my financial worries<<

Is one category of road any more ‘free’ than another category of road?

>>Unfortunately, my distraction extended to failing to notice the speed limit, or the highway patrol vehicle strategically placed behind a large roadside advertising board<<

Who designated the speed limit? By what RIGHT? How did I determine that this was a highway patrol vehicle, did it say that on it, and if so, how did I determine that it was genuine?  ‘Strategically placed’ implies intent. How did I KNOW this functionary’s intent, was I just guessing, however likely or accurate that may be?

>>The highway patrol vehicle pulled onto the road behind me and quickly caught up with my car and, by sounding his siren, flashing his lights, and motioning with his arm, the highway patrol officer ordered me to pull over<<

To catch up with me, the highway patrol vehicle’s velocity must have exceeded my velocity and, apparently, I was already going too fast. Was not the highway patrol vehicle also going too fast? Why must one driver of a particular class of vehicle drive at one maximum speed and another driver of the same class of vehicle drive at a different maximum speed? Are there different classes of people, or is it down to skill level? If it is personal, what makes one person superior to another? If it is down to skill, how did the highway patrol officer know that I had not attained that skill level? If I had not attained that skill level, why did I not have the opportunity to attain it?

How did I know that a siren, flashing lights, and arm motions constituted an order to pull over? If speed is a factor in road safety, is not sounding your siren, flashing your lights, and motioning with your arm, and hearing a siren, and seeing  flashing lights, and arm motions not a distraction, and therefore a factor in road safety? Why did I stop?

>>The highway patrol officer came up to my window and demanded to see my papers. He asked me if I knew why he had stopped me and I apologised for my excessive speed.

Why did I characterize the highway patrol officer’s words as a demand? Does anybody have the RIGHT to demand anything from me, highway patrol officer or otherwise? Why do I need to produce papers? What do papers have to do with any speed I might have been travelling at?

Did I answer the highway patrol officer’s question adequately? Did I believe that my speed was excessive? My travelling at that speed suggests otherwise, so why did I apologise for it?

>>The highway patrol officer proceeded to write me a ticket and informed me that, because I was a specified amount over the speed limit, he had no choice but to remand me to appear before a magistrate for sentencing<<

A ticket, that’s nice, I hope it is for a concert by a performer I like. What class of human being does not have free will? If highway patrol officers do not have free will are they actually a lesser class of human being, not a superior class of human being as his ability to travel above the speed limit suggests? Who decided on this excess speed margin? What is a magistrate? Can I be a magistrate?

>>My next letter was even more distressing than the tax demand as it summonsed me to court a few months hence under pain of dire consequences should I fail in my duty to attend<<

Why do I classify the words in the letter as a ‘summons’? What is a ‘court’? Will I even remember what I am supposed to have done wrong by the time of my ‘hearing’? Why have I been told that if I don’t come to a particular building on a particular date that harm will befall me? Can I order people to go to particular buildings on particular dates and threaten them with harm if they don’t comply? Isn’t a ‘duty’ a moral obligation backed by force? What is the moral that compels human beings to go to particular buildings on particular dates?

>>On the day of my hearing I carefully showered and dressed myself so as to demonstrate my acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation and hopefully show my normalcy and my respect for the court<<

What is the appropriate dress when being threatened? Armour? What is ‘normal’? Is respect for a human being who can harm you the same as respect for a dangerous dog?

>>The whole proceeding went better than I had feared. I went where I was directed, I stood and sat when I was directed, I swore my oath on the Bible,  I was polite and respectful and answered all their questions as best I could<<

Does one fear genuine justice? Is politeness, obedience, and compliance evidence that my speed was not excessive? What is a promise on the Bible worth if I am an atheist? Does the Bible permit me to swear oaths?

>>Because I freely admitted my guilt and showed contrition the magistrate chose to be lenient with me and imposed the minimum penalty permitted<<

Guilt? Did I accept that my speed was excessive or was I just agreeing that my speed exceeded some arbitrary limit? Why do some ‘officials’ seem to possess free will while others don’t? Is any financial penalty imposed on me used to compensate my victim? Who was my victim anyway? In what sense did my coerced confession and apparent contrition alter any deleterious effect of my velocity?

>>The combination of the tax assessment and the motoring fine will make it hard for me to find the required money and I may have to sell my car to fund it. I have calculated that my car is worth enough to pay off the purchase loan and still have enough left over to purchase an older vehicle that will still get me to my place of employment<<

Has anything in this scenario seriously affected another human being, or their property, to such an extent that my livelihood should be put in jeopardy?

The questions posed above may seem at first blush to contradict my assertion that truth is evident to a six-year-old because these questions could act to make affairs seem even more complicated.

Not so! Read on to discover how deceptively simple it all is.

The truths contained in the scenario

Any truths contained in the scenario will involve physical objects and concrete actions which can be registered by the human senses.

Once again, let us now examine the scenario portrayed above line-by-line and see what truths it contains.

>>I was sitting on my sofa, watching the news on my television, when I heard a noise at my front door, so I went to investigate<<

I was sitting on a sofa. I was watching television. I heard a noise. I determined that the source of the noise was likely to be in the direction of the front door. I investigated the source of the noise.

>>As I entered my hallway I espied the postman retreating round the corner of my building and noticed a letter lying on the doormat. Wondering what the postman had delivered, I picked the letter up and started to tear it open as I returned to my living room<<

I entered the hallway. I espied a human dressed in some type of costume or uniform outside. This human was walking round the corner of the building in which I was located. I noticed an envelope lying on the doormat. I picked the envelope up. I tore the envelope open.  I returned to the room containing the television.

>>To my dismay it was a letter from the Tax Authority stating that they had re-assessed me and that I now owed them considerably more than I had calculated<<

The envelope contained some sheets of paper with writing on them.

>>In my agitated state I lost interest in any continued appraisal of the state of world affairs so I switched off my television and decided to go for a drive in my car<<

I switched the television off. I drove my car.

>>I drove out of town and headed for the highway. Once on the highway I ‘opened her up’ and enjoyed the freedom of the open road which served as temporary distraction from my financial worries<<

I drove out of town and headed for the highway.

>>Unfortunately, my distraction extended to failing to notice the speed limit, or the highway patrol vehicle strategically placed behind a large roadside advertising board<<

I drove my car.

>>The highway patrol vehicle pulled onto the road behind me and quickly caught up with my car and, by sounding his siren, flashing his lights, and motioning with his arm, the highway patrol officer ordered me to pull over<<

I heard a siren. A distinctly decorated car behind me flashed its lights. The driver of the car behind gesticulated.

>>The highway patrol officer came up to my window and demanded to see my papers. He asked me if I knew why he had stopped me and I apologised for my excessive speed<<

I pulled over at the edge of the road. The distinctly decorated car pulled up behind me. A human being got out of the distinctly decorated car. The human approached the car I was driving. The human spoke to me. I felt guilty and nervous and started babbling accordingly.

>>The highway patrol officer proceeded to write me a ticket and informed me that, because I was a specified amount over the speed limit, he had no choice but to remand me to appear before a magistrate for sentencing<<

The human proffered me a piece of paper with writing on it. I took the piece of paper from his hand. He spoke some more.

>>My next letter was even more distressing than the tax demand as it summonsed me to court a few months hence under pain of dire consequences should I fail in my duty to attend<<

I found another envelope in my domicile. It contained some pieces of paper with writing on.

>>On the day of my hearing I carefully showered and dressed myself so as to demonstrate my acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation and hopefully show my normalcy and my respect for the court<<

I showered and dressed.

>>The whole proceeding went better than I had feared. I went where I was directed, I stood and sat when I was directed, I swore an oath on the Bible,  I was polite and respectful and answered all their questions as best I could<<

People named various basic actions and I agreed to perform them. I touched a book. I told a story.

>>Because I freely admitted my guilt and showed contrition the magistrate chose to be lenient with me and imposed the minimum penalty permitted<<

A man in a costume said some words.

>>The combination of the tax assessment and the motoring fine will make it hard for me to find the required money and I may have to sell my car to fund it. I have calculated that my car is worth enough to pay off the purchase loan and still have enough left over to purchase an older vehicle that will still get me to my place of employment<<

I contemplated changing vehicles.

How might a six-year-old analyse the truths outlined above?

First, some ground rules for our six-year-old analyst:

1. Don’t hit people first;
2. don’t take their stuff; and
3. beware of bullies.

Where an adult may see a law enforcement officer compelling him to do something, or prohibiting him from doing something, a six-year-old might say “a man in a funny suit is talking to daddy” or, if the situation is more tense, “a man in a funny suit is yelling at daddy”.

Which version is truth and which version is pregnant with mental constructs, beliefs, preconceived ideas, imagination, and fear?

A letter from the Tax Authority might seem to carry the weight of law, be just and fair, be applied according to defined rules and procedures, seek payment for services received, or claim a just share of your income to fund care for the sick, poor, and elderly, but, all of these explanations are fictions overlaying the truth that what you received was a letter saying “send us money or we will hurt you”.

I will not laboriously copy out the entire scenario again, but to a six-year-old it might look something like this:

• Daddy was watching television.
• Daddy got a letter.
• A bully threatened to take Daddies stuff.
• Daddy drove his car.
• Daddy talked to a man in a funny suit.
• Daddy got another letter.
• A bully threatened Daddy if he didn’t go to a big house.
• Daddy went to a big house.
• Daddy talked to a man in a funny dress.
• A bully said he would take Daddies stuff.
• Daddy came home again.

How complicated was that?

Any time you see life as more complicated than this you are obscuring truth with mental constructs, beliefs, preconceived ideas, imagination, and fear.

Conclusion

Six-year-olds have fertile imaginations and to them a simple stick can be a gun, a lightsaber, a magic wand, or any number of wondrous things, with an elaborate back-story, a set of rules, and an operating procedure. So, why do I maintain that life is simple enough for a six-year-old to master? It is because the six-year-old knows that his story is just a story.

Adults, however, can fall into the trap of believing their own elaborate fairy tales and live their lives as though these fairy tales are true.

I conclude that life is so simple that a six-year-old can analyse it and learn its truths and its rules. I am sure that you will agree that any normal six-year-old could understand, learn, and abide by the following. The question is - can we?

1. The only truth is your truth.
2. It is your responsibility to determine the truth in all circumstances.
3. You have free will.
4. You, and you alone, are responsible for your actions.
5. No one is the boss of you.
6. You are not the boss of anyone else.
7. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (said in six-year-old language).
8. Don’t hit people first.
9. Don’t take people’s stuff.
10. Your stuff is your stuff.
11. A letter, book, magazine, or pamphlet etc. is a piece of paper with writing on it.
12. Television, radio, the Internet, books, magazines, pamphlets, advertisements, and other media present other people’s opinions (see #2 above).
13. A man talking to you is a man talking to you.
14. A man threatening you is a bully.
15. Placating a bully out of fear is OK as long as he doesn’t want you to hit people first or take their stuff.

Try thinking in this manner about the things you believe to be complicated and maybe you will see life in a different light.