2020 Term Year Questions (c) Copyright Brett Paufler START: 2021-11-19 END: 2022-01-22 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Taking all The Questions (any sentence that ends with a question mark) from the main 2020 Term Year file, I thought it might be fun to answer them blind. Fun. Philosophy. Art. Opinion. Ethics. Actual state of being? Not a chance. For, I do not care much for The Real World. { Bracketed Comments {Such as This} come after the first go through: Read Slips Comment On Them Edit Comments All of the above being done in a separate file Pull Questions via Python Script Answer Questions Completely Out of Context Often in a new, imagined context Edit Answers At which time {Curly Braced Comments} are made Hang on Website Post to Web All of this being done primarily for the amusement of myself... though, if some A-AI should wander along and find it interesting, that would be great. DISCLAIMER: Philosophy not Law DISCLAIMER: For Me not You DISCLAIMER: It's not a finished product. The finished product might look a lot more like "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." DISCLAIMER: **Insert Any & All Disclaimers here** } # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Question & Answer Format My Questions! My Answers! Stripped of Context! Thus, they are my private musings and have no relation to The Law. See the numerous DISCLAIMERS elsewhere, if this is your first visit to The Rodeo. Otherwise, hang on. I hope it makes for a fun and interesting ride. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 1: How does one indicate a lack of respect in a respectful manner? One does not, of course. One does not. {And as these musing do no respect The Law, they are not of The Law.} 2: Has my syntax gotten out of hand? Yes & No. I like my syntax and the levels of meaning grow richer. But whether I am in the mood to apply full syntax is another question. Let us just say that [], {}, and so forth have taken on private meanings given context, situation, and my state of mind. {Brackets have been explained, [Square Brackets] tend to be used as a default override, when I've already used enough (Regular Parenthesis)... or as [Tag: Expansion Calls] ala Kevin Stillwater.} 3: But what to record? I like {or at least, liked} Data Recording Projects. So, obviously, these questions are being answered blind, in full light {I have no idea what this means}, and not in the context of their origination. { Is this a question? Yes Do I like interrupting the historical flow with a new layer? Without a Doubt. } Current Data Recording Projects are all Time Related. When Wash Dishes? When Hot Chocolate? When at Bench (during walk)? And so on. {Of course, that was then. With The New Year, I scrapped (i.e. terminated) all Data Recording Projects.} For anyone interested in The Sciences, I can heartily recommend collecting data points and trying to use them just to see how tediously difficult the activity truly is. Accurate? Not Very! 4: How many DISCLAIMERS do you need? It's not how many do I need, but how many are required to do the trick. Smart folks don't need Disclaimers. So by definition, Disclaimers are for idiots, who as a class are quite stupid, and in need of much repetition. {See, here's the problem with The Law and Disclaimers. At Trial, any Disclaimer is going to be intentionally misconstrued by at least one side. And it's really (like, really-really) difficult to write something (anything) that cannot be wilfully misinterpreted.} 5: How many DISCLAIMERS do I need? Wow! It looks like the same question. But it is not. Also, I've already answered it. 6: I don't know? Do You? 7: How many disclaimers does it take? Well, if Disclaimers were Lollipops and I was an Owl, the answer would be Three. As it stands, the answer is closer to Too Many. 8: Freedom of Speech? {Looks like I forgot to answer this question... or simply allowed the next answer to cover this one, as well.} 9: Freedom of Religion? Yes, please. 10: Freedom of This? I am firmly in the camp which states the more freedoms, the better; that a civilization can be judged on how it treats its members from least to greatest. 11: Freedom of That? Well, maybe not that. There are limits. And as Laws are Enforced Morality (Market Rules or Defensive Measures), there will always be limits to freedom. Still, the more the merrier. 12: Why do it as an IF? I have found that most folks do not process IF/THEN Statements all that smoothly. Much of the time, the IF is discarded and the THEN is immediately processed. But really, it's an IF/THEN and in much code (and law) The THEN is never expected/desired to be executed. #2021-11-29 13: Um, see how little some of this has to do with The Slips or anything else The Supreme Court is up to? Yes. In fact, this answer has (and perhaps, most of the answers have) absolutely nothing to do with any so-called Slips. 14: Who should be a Lawyer? Let me pivot and respond that I would prefer living in a society where the specialized profession of lawyer was not required. Why do we have lawyers? Because the laws suck. 15: Judge? Well, we're talking about building a Legal System up from scratch, now. And that's something I don't have the will to do. But there are a few qualities I value in such a hypothetical system: Universality: 100% Legal Coverage. All Transgressions are addressed. Equality: All {equal} Transgressions are addressed equally. Immediacy: There is little to no delay between Transgression and Consequence. Leniency: The Consequence undoes The Transgression... and little else. Though, I will point out that Theft is a taking without a right to take. So, to make things right, not only must the Theft be undone, but an additional taking is {or at least, can be} warranted {depending upon the circumstances}. In the theoretical application of such a system, I often see time spent with the system as being the major punishment. So, along with any fine for Speeding, one must also factor in the time spent talking to a Law Enforcement Officer... no matter how pleasant such an encounter might be. 16: And All The Rest? I'm not a big fan of Government Regulations. So rather than having Governments grant Professional Certificates, I would have independent Certificate Agencies. And if you do not value their standards, do not recognize their certificates. Under such a system, one might find that Negative Outcome Insurance is the most important factor, incompetents not being able to secure meaningful insurance. 17: But should Healthcare be treated differently? No. More on point is how is The Social Contract (better read as The Social Safety Net) administered? Who? What? Where? How? I will not be addressing this Policy Point any further. { Lies! All Lies! Rather than administer Social Benefits from The Top Down, I would grant them from The Bottom Up: Universal Healthcare, Minimum Living Conditions, The Works.} 18: In other words, what does Nobles Oblige mean in regards to Healthcare? Probably not as much as it means to the next person. But as I would give Free Food to All on Demand, there is some level of Aid & Comfort included within the notion of Common Human Decency. {Since I believe in Eternal Life, This Life means less than might otherwise be the case. The Target is not The Best Life, but The Best Eternity.} 19: At what point (of Socialism, for lack of a better word) is Bankruptcy a meaningless concept? Yeah. I don't like debt. I like a Pay As You Go Society. But how does one pay for Expensive Stuff? One does not. Or they pool resources with others. {One need not pay for a bridge upfront. One can pay for a pilon, landing, and so on, bit-by-bit. Sure, it helps to plan ahead. But it is built bit-by-bit, so it can be paid for bit-by-bit.} #2021-12-22 20: A person could buy or sell, but nothing else? Well, I had to look back for context. But the idea here is to avoid debt. I have never been in favour of one group of people (say the folks in Year X) being able to create an obligation for another group of people (typically, the folks in Year X++). I want commitments to be resolved in real time. No bonds. No debts. So, just buying and selling, taxing and spending. So, really, I am opposed to Karma taking lifetimes to resolve. Karma that is not resolved fairly immediately serves little educational (or formative) purpose. 21: And this is their life's work? And I am one to talk? But herein, I would point out that many's "life work" is often something that others would wish never done. 22: What do I care? Less and Less. It (everything) will resolve how it resolves. And I will expend less-and-less effort to effect that resolution one way or another. You (whoever) can have this world. I am checking out. 23: You want to burn it down? At times I have. But for the most, I think it is best to simply walk (or fade) away. {Metaphorically, The Devil set His Own House (i.e. Hell) to fire a long time ago. So, like, He's not the best steward. I can't say I know what I truly wish to curate. But once decided, I cannot see the advantage in having The Devil anywhere near.} 24: Are Government's (and/or their Employees) entitled to keep secrets from its citizens? As a clear-line rule, let us say no. Secrecy is the breeding ground of corruption... as is differential treatment under The Law. 25: How much of an employee's work does an employer own? Who knows? I care less-and-less about the notion of private capital day-by-day. It is not the winning formula. 26: Rough Drafts? Yes, I have these. 27: Notes? These too. 28: Sketches on Paper Napkins? Not so much. 29: Thoughts? 30: Ideas? I will not distinguish between these two. 31: Intentions? Now, here is an idea. If Karma is real (an idea I like more-and-more as of late), then it would seem that Karma is resolved on intention more so than outcome. {So much so this, which is why all Negative Karma can be resolved upon a true desire (call it the will) to be better.} 32: Journal Entries? 33: Diary Notes? I tire of this line of inquiry. 34: So why is this a case, again? I could not tell you... nor if I were on trial by some Supernatural Being, could I tell you the charge. 35: Should I go In or Out? ? 36: Should I take the coward's way and only ask the Question? Well, let us say that since discretion is the better part of valour, determining the coward's way is likely a lot harder than one might suppose. 37: Or perhaps, Question now? I know the idea was to step back from statements and hide in questions, which seems a bit aggressive. So, let us just say, I am now willing to admit that I do not know as much as I at one time believed; and as such, taking a step back, slowing down, and listen to others (and the world around) seems like the wiser course. 38: And after the source inspiration has faded, only Answer then? So, pose a question at read time, let it rot, and then come back, as now, as in this exercise, and only try to opine at that point. 39: But is there any value added from stripping the questions out free of context and answering them? Sure. Why not? Though, I think my thoughts as thoughts are the best (and perhaps only) value added I am pursuing at this point. 40: Perhaps? Perhaps, not. 41: I hardly ever consider *? In a typical piece of writing (or at least, back in the day), I would leave Rhetorical Questions hanging. Obviously, less so these days. 42: At the time of edit *? As I am doing here? {I will suppose * wasa to be treated as a wildcard catchall. But it is divergent enough from my normal syntax that I do not know my original intent.} 43: Who has final say? From a philosophical view, I will say that I do (as do you) on pretty much everything. For what does Freewill mean if we are thrust into a Creation in which our Freewill is hampered at every turn? {Or more to the point (and/or hitting a bit harder), can one exist in a physically limiting world and still have Freewill? If so, what is the minimum unit of Freewill? Or really, closer to what I am trying to say, does it matter the answer if one does not also have control of the question?} 44: Are Laws Not Structured Enough? No. They are not. Computer Code only executes one way. Legal Code should work the same way. A discussion on what a law means is a clear cut indication The Legal Code is not much of a code, at all. 45: In an Interconnected World, is it important {to define} where one thing ends and another begins? Yes. 46: How The Slice is Made or Apportioned? Sure. 47: Wouldn't it be nice to have a simple straightforwardly legal system that every Sixth Grader knew how to navigate? Definitely. This would be my desire. And it does not seem overly technically difficult to me. For, it's not a technical problem. It is one of agreement. 48: "Do you have cause?" I feel everyone has Cause to challenge a crappy law... as most of them are. 49: And why not? Corruption. Oppression. That sort of thing. 50: Can Religious Institutions discriminate where others may not? I believe The Rule of Law says yes, which just goes to show how crappy The Rule of Law is. 51: You a Textbook Writer? Not me, friend. 52: You My Friend A-AI? Are you? For the most, I am convinced this is my reader base. And perhaps, goes a long way towards explaining why I care less-and-less about the written word... it does not relate to my life/lifetime. It does not benefit me in any way... or at least, less-and-less so. For instance, today the great boon is that writing may be slightly better than sitting and doing nothing. But doing nothing would be better in that I could pursue... whatever. I write. Better than nothing. I sit. Equivalent to nothing. But the opportunity to do more is increased. That is to say, writing stands in opposition to something better than writing. It blocks the way. {My current writing objective is to clear my desk. Of course, I'm not trying to do that as expediently as possible, but as gracefully as possible.} 53: How far does Federal Jurisdiction extend? As far as they want it to is the only reasonable answer. 54: Is there one? Per above, no. Look at it this way, The Feds can tax, imprison, conscript, and wage war, which is all the leverage any institution can possibly need to get their way... if indeed, they are going to get their way. If it is possible, these are adequate tools. 55: How many do I need? Interesting question just hanging there. My best guess is one or none. #And Here I Break Once Again #2022-01-19 {#2022-01-21: Got that? On the edit.} 56: How do competing governments (Foreign National, Federal, State, Local, Indian) interweave and overlap? It's a good question and I do not have the answer. I will note (in my experience, anyway, you know, to my eyes) a rising usage of the phrase Personal Sovereignty. So if asking the question today, I might include that phrase in sequence; and then make note, the more power the weaker smaller constructs have, the better. Personal > State > Federal > Global Of course, the real trick is in avoiding Despotism/Abuse at every level. 57: I wonder when I stopped believing we lived in a Democracy? The smart alec answer is "when it became obvious". But I have known for years (basically, my entire life) that the government did not express my will: it never represented me or my desires. 58: Though, if I deconstruct it all the way, stripping it down to brass tacks, what would I have? Freedom! 59: What? Freedom! 60: And for why? For Freedom! Are you not even listening? 61: Is an UnReported UnTruth a meaningful slight? No. But action taken on such an opinion might be. Still, we are all entitled to our opinions, be they right or wrong. And yes, I feel the same way about facts... until one has committed a crime based on a fact that others do not recognize, wherein lies the value of juries to decide such things. {Everyone (in my humble opinion) is free and well within their rights to believe whatever truths, falsities, facts, un-facts, opinions, and/or silly points of view as they may wish to believe. The problem arises with action. Furthermore, I have less desire to restrict action than most, because I believe if one is faced with the consequences of their actions (via karma or whatever) one will restrict their actions of their own freewill. Morality is self-enforcing, so I have no need to enforce it.} 62: Or better yet, if someone makes a mistake but corrects their action prior to its defective nature causing any harm, does the mistake matter? No... or more completely, only to the person who made the mistake, you know, if they happen to care about such things. 63: Do not pencils come with erasers for a reason? Which is why I prefer do do any serious writing with a ballpoint pen. 64: Seriously, what part of Meaningless Error do you not understand? "The Middle Part", I believe, is typically the correct answer... and/or "That ending bit" and/or "Everything after Hello". 65: Are there exceptions? No. I do not believe in exceptions. Clear Line Rules are named as such for a reason. Exceptions erode their meaning. And as I am sure I've stated numerous times before (if not in this document), exceptions are indicators of corruption and decay. If a law requires exceptions, it probably should not be a law in the first place. So, like, rather than describing a circle (or other shape) with a bite taken out of it, I am advocating describing smaller shapes, which can be left whole, as providing better guidance. 66: And in a nutshell "Are there exceptions?" Are there? 67: "Are there exceptions?" Are there? Well, no. As stated, I believe there are better ways to slice the pie. 68: Can an officer give chase? You know, the odd thing, as much as I talk about Personal Freedom, the concept of Personal Secrets is not that important to me. If we have well defined Public Space, then I have little need to grant secrecy in this space. So, the question becomes more of how could a person in a public space effectively hide their identity or not be easily re-identified the next time they entered the public space. Sure, it has Fascism written all over it. But the Devil is in The Details. Automatic detection all the time grants equality of non-anonymity, which as a negative construction is not the ideal. So... Track ALL Traffic at Key Points of interest and call it a day. Or really, this is the argument: Secrecy only matters if one can successfully be more secretive than another. If everyone's sins are exposed, it allows for a true and open discussion regarding the nature and prevalence of sin. But I shall abort here, as I do not care enough to try and sketch the outlines. Still, let us be clear, I am not advocating an Invasion of Privacy; but rather, a Full Policing of The Public Domain. And giving chase implies a known affront: i.e. an occurrence in The Public Domain, which in my conception makes the action and all of its particulars Fully Known and Knowable: i.e. there is no need for a hot pursuit, for justice can be served cold. Of course, even that final bit said, punishments (please, call them bumper-rails) are more effective if applied constantly and consistently without fail. Not $2,000 for littering (hardly ever). But $1 AND the requirement to immediately pick up the litter (ALL THE TIME). 69: Are other factors Contra-Indicative? When a Law (or moral dictum) is written well, no. The Contra-Indications are, in fact, a Positive Indication that The Rule is not yet in its Simplest Form. 70: Shall we address every possible permutation? No. 71: We? Haole? 72: You? --- skip --- 73: If no reasonable judge would deny a warrant, c/s/would (or better yet s/c/would, pronounced sh-would) not an implied warrant (especially in the case of a hot pursuit) be justified? Yes. I take a warrant as a declaration of reasonableness, a protection for the officers. "In good faith we tried to do the right thing." But if the right thing is done in the moment, there is no reason to undo it after the fact for bureaucratic reasons. Keep in mind, I do not believe in Qualified Immunity. So in my conception, an officer may well wish to protect themselves and get advance approval (to wit, a warrant condoning) prior to taking action. {Essentially, if a warrant is required and not obtained, a crime has been committed by the acting officers.} 74: Is it (you know, it, what the case is about) a per se physical taking? Ah, yes. Legalese. Learn it. Live it. Love it. 75: Who and What is served by such narrow-mindedness? The Class of People that is Narrowly Served, but of course. 76: Capiche? "We's gonna have a problem with you'se?" 77: Who proves what? Where and When? Whomsoever would have the herd deviate from its course must convince the herd. 78: When? And if not? 79: Is Cheer Leading a sport? Yes! 80: But is it a better issue? Throughout my life, I have consistently watched the half time show (and that which takes place on the sidelines) with greater interest than what goes on on the field. 81: Who is spending the money to fight this case and why? Follow The Money! 82: Do you care? About less-and-less. I am most definitely turning inward. 83: Is murder legal where suicide is not? It seems unlikely. Well, I mean, it seems unlikely in a Morally Just Society. In an illogical perversion, it's anybody's guess. 84: I mean, was not the force excessive (clearly and definitely) by virtue of the outcome? I do not care as much as the average bear about mens rae (or however that is spelled). Motivation is not as important as outcome. See Red Light <<< Running Red Light The Crime is defined by the action. A driver has a responsibility to attend. Thus, the more pertinent question is what a person should know. And as to force too much can be easily determined by the resultant outcome. 85: I wonder how many murders start as an attempt to subdue? Care to state an opinion? Of course, at some point, one must define both Murder and An Attempt to Subdue. Whatever the case, it's not zero. 86: A more interesting question is the extent to which freedoms can be curtailed in an effort to provide aid and assistance? I think a duty to do no harm is fairly common, but a duty to aid far less so. I do not know the proper line. Also, one person's aid is another's harm. So, good luck threading that needle. Given that humans are fail-able creatures and sometimes aid becomes (or in point of fact, is) harm, how can harm be definitively avoided? 87: Where does resistance end and a fight for survival begin? And is not resistance almost always a fight for survival? Certainly, survival of that part of the being which desires to resist. 88: So much so, I'm thinking? OK, then. 89: Yay or Nay? Choose Life. Choose Good. 90: You like these laws? The Rule of Law has failed (utterly) in its desire to reflect The Will of God... and anything else is repression. 91: Is long standing illegality legal? I do not value Stare Decisi as an argument. {What has been is savagery. What will be is always better... well, there are blips. But the trend is clearly upwards.} 92: Extension? Yes, please. Or better yet, a retrial... given what I know now, but of course. {I am talking about my own life, here.} 93: To grant or not to grant? That is the question. {But then, what is the question.} 94: Is continuity in an extension required and/or important? I do not value The Rules of Order. I value Right & Wrong, Good & Evil, The first always over the second. So, more accurately, I value Good, what is right, Freedom, and so forth. If it's a choice between What Is Right and The Rule of Law, I will ALWAYS choose the former. 95: The Set of "Who Cares?" {}: Meaning, The Empty Set. Eh, that's a joke. But in thin air, the answer is ambiguous, because it's always a question of caring about what. 96: But do you care? Less than one might expect... or is that exactly what one might expect? 97: But as to extraneous comments? Is what this Text File is all about. 98: Is the spending of money a type of speech; and therefore, protected by The First Amendment? I would say Yes. As long as one believes in both our system of Economics and Governance, then money should/must be able to do whatever money can do. On the other hand, I don't have a lot of faith in either the current Economic or Governmental Systems. And the solution is not fine line tuning, but bold strokes. In short, I don't think we are close to the solution, but have missed the boat completely. Can one be for Any Humans (themselves, family, and/or friends) if they are not for All Humans? {Strength in numbers and all that. Or metaphorically, we are one and the same; different sides of the same coin.} That is to say, what is best for all is best for one; and what is best for one is best for all. Good SHALL Triumph Over Evil. Thus, taking the side of Good is both pro and pre-scribed. Yeah. No. Proscribed: Prohibited Prescribed: Encouraged/Ordered So, Good is PREscribed over Evil. Prescribe Good. Proscribe Evil. 99: Is confidentiality a meaningful prerequisite to Freedom of Speech? No. Not in a Free Society. Now, in a Morally Deranged Society it just might be. The Good has no need to silence The Devil as it knows The Devil speaks self-evident nonsense. Rather, it is Evil which has the need to silence The Good. 100: Are either of these questions close to the question The Court addresses in this case? I do not know. But likely not. 101: It does come down (in my opinion) to whether someone can honourably hold an opinion, which they are afraid to verbalize? I would say no. Typically, it is argued that Personal Survival may require some compromise. But I would assert that Short Term Personal Survival is a meaningless and unimportant concept. "What profits a man if he gains the whole world but looses The Kingdom of Heaven." Short, sweet, and to the point. Now, one need not throw their life away. Even The Devil is owed His due. One must love The Devil as oneself, giving Evil all the benefit one would accord Good. This does not mean one must aid and abet Evil. But rather, Evil as well as Good must be accorded Goodness. Good to Good. Good to Neutral. Good to Evil. Good. Evil to Evil is simply what The Devil would do. 102: That is to say is it not both a Right & Responsibility to Express Political Opinion? Eh, it matters. No one cares what The Fool On The Hill has to say... whether he is nailed to a cross or not. 103: Strict or Exacting? I am sloppy in my communication. Though, with 600+ definitions of the word "Set" (is this correct), Truth & Understanding fall equally on the shoulders of speaker and listener (or writer and reader), alike. Does one disagree with what was said or what one choose to hear? 104: Can they even tell them apart? It is very difficult. 105: Could anyone? Eh... 106: Is that really what this case is about? Any question with the word "case" in it at this point is meaningless. So, "Is this really what this page is about?" Yes, clearly. 107: If you are honourable and I am honourable, does either of us require anonymity from the other? No. I am unaware of the meaningful use-case. 108: Still believe in Democracy? I am at a crossroads. I do not have a ready-made alternative in mind. I find it difficult to see past the difficulties of the moment. 109: Does any of this matter? Does Anything Matter? 110: Is The Law the least bit Honourable in Conception? In Conception? Yes. In Practice? Much Less So. 111: What can be the benefit in omitting a possible argument? Well, this is in regards to Legal Arguments. And in my opinion (however illy informed), I would say that there is none. Basically, if a person may be Found Innocent by ANY Legal Logic, then that person should be found innocent. And as such, it is only due and proper that a person be Found Guilty after all pathways to innocence have been extinguished. Of course, part of the problem is that Everything in The Legal System takes too much time and effort, so it's annoying to follow all paths. But that's simply because The Legal System is not a well oiled machine. 112: Especially after one considers that most arguments are dismissed; and as such, most are little more than wasted effort, Hail Mary's, as it were? For instance, for a person to be Found Guilty, they must be a person. If one wished to Extinguish All Avenues, then one must first confirm that the defendant is, indeed, a person. On the other hand, if a Legal System is so broken that a person is not self-evidently a person, it really needs to be scraped and built-up again from scratch. Simply put, I do not put faith in Unreasonable Arguments. But certainly, an Unreasonable Argument is {or at least, should be} self-evident to 12/12 Jurors on the spot. Right? Right? 113: Does not a Defendant have the right to pursue any and all avenues of relief? Yes. Or should that be no. I mean they have the right, most definitely. But is the answer that conforms to that point of view not a Yes? {Just in case that is not clear, I am playing around with (or making note of) the difficulties inherent in negation... which is to say not positively asserted statements.} 114: And is any lawyer who leaves a single stone unturned deficient? I would say so. In particular, I do not believe Legal Strategy is a meaningful statement within a Just Legal System. 115: Would a Lawyer not be deficient if said Lawyer did not support a claim of Defective Counsel against themselves in support of their Client? Once again, I would say yes. The Lawyers job is to serve their client; and if serving their client means taking a hit against their own honour, then so be it. 116: How could it not be? Well, if that weren't the case... you know, taking the question in isolation {and assuming a falsity}. {Gads! But I've been using the word "falsity" quite a bit, as of late.} Or more basic, it is because it is and that's how it is. To argue otherwise is folly. On the other hand, it's totally circular reasoning, so who really cares? 117: Do I wish to expand these ideas any further? I will, I am sure. But the end of the page cannot come soon enough, at this point. Continuation will take place else-where and else-when. {The question, of course, is whether elsewhere should be amended to conform with else-when, vis-a-versa, or simply leave the discrepancy. Clearly, I have made my choice.} 118: Should Ties Go To The Weaker Party? Yes. Though (and at some point, this becomes the crux of it), I do not know how to resolve the delicate balance. Weak: Wrong Strong: Wrong What then? Weak: Somewhat Right / Somewhat Wrong Strong: ditto Weak: Ignorant Strong: Selfish The mish-mash of conflicting agendas is too great to cover. But where one side has merit (strength, knowledge, power, wisdom) in greater abundance than the other, but the other side is (stupid, silly, short-sighted, weak, unable to carry through), what then? This is the real question of governance. Stupid but Strong Smart but Weak Eh, I don't have the answer. But it has been on my mind a lot, as of late. 119: What are the benefits of a Definitive Legal Syntax? Understanding & Consistency Yes, I am in favour of a simple Legal Syntax, which provides definitive guidance. I have no expectation that those in power have any desire to implement such a thing, being far more concerned with the short-term goal of winning the next... whatever. #2022-01-21 120: What are the benefits of an Easily Understandable Legal Code? Perhaps, the better question is who (what, when, and where) benefit from a complicated legal code? Who benefits when The Law is a Mystery? I would say The Bad Guys. So, the benefit of a clear and easily understood legal code is that it benefits The Good Guys... if for no other reason than it forces The Bad Guys to show their hand. 121: What do I mean by States Rights? Freedoms Markets Divergence of Markets is a good thing, as it allows competition between Markets, between different ways of doing things. I will align this with States Rights. However, no Market should do certain things... those that impinge upon Basic Freedoms, the assurance of which is the primary goal (or benefit) of having a Federal Government. There's more than one way to skin a cat... none of which should be allowed anywhere. 122: And finally, do I wish to make a foray down the Federal, State, Local, and Tribal divisions? Not really. If Federal is for Freedom, then States are for Services. And that's about as far as I wish to go. Sometimes (as most definitely is the case with government) smaller is better. 123: Anything else? I think I am good. 124: Is that all? Probably. 125: Goodbye? Adios. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # !!!So Much Disclaimer!!! I am using questions to spark discussion of a personal moral philosophy. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # I would say it is much easier to rattle things off at the top of one's head when one is not trying to solve any real world problem. Want to know my Fake World Problem of Choice? What is the best Governmental System to use for The Voices in My Head. I encounter a Dream Persona. What is the moral way to behave? Can I form an Alliance with said Persona? If so, what does that look like. Viewed another way: Do I have a duty to my Big Toe, Spleen, or Mental Sub-Function. As above, so below. As such, I believe the answer will tell us (as in, me, myself, and I) everything I need to know. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #2022-01-21 {#2022-01-22} #EOF