SOCIAL ENGR 3          

Home Up Feedback Contents Search












Marriage is a contract between two people (of opposite sex obviously) to have AND TO RAISE their own children. The terms of who does what- the specialized division of labor, and particularly sexual matters-what is being contracted should be clearly understood by both parties, to avoid misunderstanding. Without the intent to raise children there can be no marriage, only cohabitation. "Love" is a motivation, a possible cause, NOT the action itself. Marriage is NOT for the direct benefit of the couple but for their children, by way of a) eros, b) comparative value including maternal and paternal love, c) philos, d) agape, e) Godly love etc. Their self interest is to accomplish this desired benefit / value not easily obtained other ways. Marriage has endured for thousands of years, while all competitors have gone away. It is foolish to ignore / reject this success! Do not argue with what works; & don't lightly try to change it. "If it "ain't" broke; don't fix it."

            Neither the State nor the "Church" has any delegated rights to license or otherwise regulate marriage. It is simply an interpersonal contract, and thus not delegated to anyone else. It IS proper for society to provide a means VOLUNTARILY to register (publicize) a marriage, and to facilitate it, but not to REQUIRE that the couple register it.


DIVORCE: Divorce is a separation of a couple and a breach of the marriage contract. Being a breach it MAY come under judicial control if there is a difference of opinion as to how to settle the "estate" and the self imposed obligations = responsibilities. If the couple agree, then all society may do is to offer the service of recording the agreement, the same way it recorded the original contract.

NEEDS vs RIGHTS Nature does not grant anyone a "right" to necessities, such as food and shelter and to presume otherwise is just wishful, unrealistic thinking. Some people wish that society would grant them a right to the basic necessities without self responsibility, the "world owes me a living" philosophy.  Others fall for this illogic and try to give these non-adult people what they "need"  from the public coffers. BUT IT IS NOT THEY WHO ARE PAYING!  If and only if they themselves voluntarily pay for the support of others, based upon their own values for those others - a "virtue"- may they act on these erroneous wishes. Neither needs nor wishes are rights; & they are not to be confused with rights. Most people would like to have something for nothing, and most people wish for more than they really earn. If they get it then to the extent that they should have earned that value they will have their self respect destroyed.


THE "RIGHT" TO FOOD, MEDICINE, SHELTER, ETC. NECESSITIES: Nature does NOT provide for these necessities. Nature is actually generous in that she does occasionally provide some of these free without labor, but overall we must exert ourselves to produce what we consume. Providing for my necessities, and then even more to provide for my own comfort is an obligation of myself to myself. If I wish to live, & be comfortable then I must go out and provide these necessities. That incentive - to live, and to be comfortable - is by far the greatest incentive to work and create wealth, to create value, that we have. If we in any way weaken or destroy it, then we go against nature herself.



Individuals or society may wish to provide a "safety net" for anyone who temporarily fails in this endeavor to provide for themselves, to provide a VERY short term insurance either pre paid or a short term LOAN to allow them to stay alive until they recover. This may even take the form of prepaid insurance, or loans. But Society must insist on payment, sooner or later. Social security (Technically a form of Federal Insurance) historically has been converted into retirement & other things which it was never intended to be, and has increased into a social burden. This conversion (= theft) must be strictly prevented.


LONG TERM INCOMPETENCE If individuals are not able to control their own lives so as to provide for themselves, and to repay emergency loans, then they may be placed into a form of slavery where someone who is more competent will direct their actions to make them productive. This is Exactly equal to children who are self irresponsible being controlled by adults who are more self responsible. This involuntary servitude must be merely a loss of liberty to do foolish things imposed because of PROVEN incompetence and proven inability to make one's own decisions. For example inability to repay a safety net loan, is a form of bankruptcy. Thus long term social welfare per se should be taken as indication of those people who can not provide for themselves, and their services should be sold to the highest bidder to control their lives since they failed to control themselves.



Charity is a form of mercy, a higher ethic than justice. Charity is a valid virtue if practiced individually. Charity involves transferring earned value or wealth to others by the creator of that value for past benefits or for the POTENTIAL for creating future values that the producer- earner- creator - finds in those HE appreciates.

An individual "loans" or gives his wealth, value to others for his own reasons.  He expects his "investment" overall to provide a social incentive to be productive. This frequently happens by helping someone over a difficult situation expecting productivity after they learn how to overcome some error. Or it may be just payment to elderly for past productivity, a form of mercy or justice, helping them as he himself would want to be helped should he be in the same situation. Charity is a higher ethic than justice, it is a form of mercy.


Virtue is ONLY individually valid, but can be done by voluntary associations such as churches, or other social groups such as clubs etc. It can not be done by government.


Governmental mandated charity is unethical, a form of theft. It takes by force (taxes) the producer's wealth and deprives the individual of control of the wealth he created. Further it unethical by forcing  acceptance of someone else's value system, depriving the individual of his right to select his own values. The person who created the wealth is the person best able to control it and to maintain or increase that wealth. Many others would like to steal it, to control it, but that is just wishful unrealistic thinking at best; socially destructive, and a form of collectivism, and theft. The reality was that they could not create the wealth, or at least they observable DID not create that value- so they should not be given control as that will destroy the wealth to the extent that they were incompetent to produce the wealth in the first place.


If you do not control your wealth, it will control you; AND DESTROY you. Thus the wealth is destroyed, and the value system of the individuals also are harmed, harming society as a whole since it is the sum of the vales of its members, and sum of its individual wealth


Charity is an INDIVIDUAL social virtue. If government removes our free will, and the choice to do good, or not to do good, then it robs us of that virtue.  Only if we are allowed to develop our own values systems to include those values which we see in other people will we, ourselves develop socially speaking. Thus socialism/ collectivism always leads to socially immature people who then can not make long range plans, and thus this leads to the collapse of that society. We either grow individually, and thus also grow as a group, or our society on the average declines. 




The "rights" of children and animals are granted to them by other more mature "adult" people. Children are little people but they are by definition incompetent to support themselves. Being little people they may be granted certain special rights as people not usually given to animals. But being incompetent they are placed under control of guardians, usually parents, who assume responsibility for those children. They do this because of the potential values they see in the children, and the emotional benefits of that relationship. They part with time, value, food & shelter, and work for the joys and trials of bringing up and "releasing to the wild" these little humans.

But required actions or prohibited actions toward children or any other human can not be based upon "needs or necessities" or other any other ill thought our set of wishes to get something for nothing, only upon the values that each person himself holds for other people. The values must come form within NOT from social control. You can not and must not try to legislate morality or customs.


Society may set up very general rules of how best to bring up children but must NOT apply force and thus destroy diversity of environment. They may set extreme bounds & they may impose punishment for deliberate harm, or even for negligent and obvious but avoidable harm - and / or perhaps to require positive acts to prevent probable future harm.


Society may remove children, who are by definition incompetent to provide for themselves, from their parents / guardians only if other individuals or groups within society agree to support these children themselves. They may not enslave the parents, or any other minority within society to support any children or any other individuals. The fallacy of an obligation or implied in a contract to support a child by bringing the child into the world and an implied a duty to support the child - particularly in the manner to which someone else would like to dictate, fails since it involves enslavement. It inflicts one persons's values on another. The "liberal" bleeding heart syndrome playing on the conscience of people to get them to help those who are helpless steps over ethical bounds when they try to make LAWS that require others to go along with those well intentioned actions because Laws always involve application of force.


CHILD SUPPORT etc. Does society have any delegation and thus rights to control child support? They do not. Translation we must stop social use of FORCE to require any person to support any other person. That is a form of slavery. While a parent may value his children (even in my opinion SHOULD) and wish to support them, that is an individual value judgement and society inflicting even a majority opinion on anyone is a breach of ethics. The one who supports the child has custody, period. The child support as now constituted does not link responsibility to control. It must do so.


POWER, Wealth, concepts

People in lower ethical stages (lower maturity) can not be given concepts that lead to more power than they can control. Either you control 

            1) power, 2) wealth, 3) value, 4) money, 5) concepts 


or they will control YOU; and in the process these all self destruct destroying you with themselves. They are unstable, providing positive feedback, and require human negative feedback to keep them from self destruction. They are seeking higher entropy, more disorder, while they themselves are orderly or promote order, a sort of inverse natural balance.


            ANALYSIS OF ERRORS (what NOT to do) INDICTMENTS.


THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH:: Usually headed by a President or Prime Minister, sometimes Communist Party Secretary, often a tyrant with those titles, but always in charge of the Army, Navy, an Air Force (interestingly enough unconstitutional in the U.S. as there is no provision for it; and it is prohibited explicitly by 10th amendment !); a Coast Guard, and other National (FBI, CIA etc.) police. At a more local level headed by a Governor etc. with the same general duties. The executive branch is the one branch that is most likely to go out of control, turning into an elitist dictatorship, or some form of tyranny; Example Sadam Husain, Hitler, etc.


The U.S. federal executive branch is out of control. The Ruby Ridge, and Waco incidents prove that cold blooded killers have been protected, and even promoted and given medals, instead of being prosecuted! The murder of the children "hostages" at Waco is a clear case of at least gross negligent homicide and all concerned, top to bottom, should have at the very least, been tried, declared felons, removed from appointive or elective office, if not given long jail terms.  Instead a conspiracy to obstruct justice is in place, and these killers remain as "agents" of the people!


The local police are not much better. Their main occupation in terms of contact with the public is enforcing unethical and un-delegated, and thus illegal, laws.  They give out unethical speeding tickets {un-delegated, because the average citizen disagrees with the speed limits, inflicted on them by an unresponsive out of control legislative branch}, seat belt violations {also un-delegated- it simply is none of the business of the "public" }, motor cycle helmet laws {ditto}, etc. i.e. they have become a class of highwaymen, extracting tolls from innocent by passers. In England three centuries ago they hung such. Instead of halting real crime and being a friend, they have become more and more an enemy to be feared to the average citizen. The police also have attracted "jack booted thugs" who beat minorities, and swagger about with a gun on their hip. These thugs are basically above the law, by a conspiracy of silence to protect fellow brother officers. At least the majority {I HOPE!} of honest police know this problem exists, but the problem is how to allow them to, or to force the system to, get rid of the bad apples. Here pride is a tool that can be used. Given the chance most police would cheerfully solve the problem, but the dishonesty exists in pockets of corruption defying overall "policing" by the majority. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The answer to speed traps etc. at least is easy- allow enforcement of laws required for safety, but require 100% of all funds confiscated including "court costs" to be sent to the STATE. Thus the local jurisdiction will not have any financial interest in stealing from the by passer, just in safety for itself.


LEGISLATIVE BRANCH usually is a Senate/House of Peers, and a Parliament / House of Representatives, bicameral system; one to represent popular plebs by head count, the other to represent elitist "landed" interests. At the local level councilmen, selectmen or even town meetings may hold legislative power. The long term public interests are represented in theory by the "higher" longer term house. The short term immediate needs are represented by the 2 years "house" which is immediately answerable to the public for their actions - or lack thereof.

Unfortunately as previously mentioned the representatives today do not represent, and do not protect the public any more. They are out of touch with what is good for the nation / society etc. They often, even usually represent special interests. In fact they probably could not be nominated without the bribes paid by these controlling lobbyists.  Even worse, the "people" often do not really know what is best for them most of the time, "Can you name ANY case where the majority was right?"


The current accountant theory of Law is that we will list all required or prohibited actions, clearly and in writing, so that all may know what is required or prohibited BEFORE the fact. Since the law is based, at least in theory, upon ethics what is true after it is codified was still true before it was written down as well, so the prohibition of "Ex post facto" (after the fact) laws is in violation of ethics. The purpose of prohibition of "Ex post facto" laws was to be sure that everyone understood the rules of the game, before we enforced those rules. We have lost that intent in the mass confusion and sheer volume of gobble de gook passed into "pseudo law."  If the public can not understand ALL the codified law then it is bad law, and needs to be done away with; reduce legislation to only comprehensible laws.


            DIRECT LEGISLATURE: Our present communications system is such that we could do away with the failed representative legislative government & go to a direct plebescite. Any law not obtaining at least half of all votes by registered voters in a limited period of time, suggested as 90 days, should / would automatically fail, and could not be reintroduced for some specified time period, suggested 4 years. If it passes, then a fraction of those voting against it, should be able to challenge it as violating their individual rights, maintaining republican form of law. A  majority of the minority should be able to rescind any bad law. For close votes, I would propose that a simple majority of those voting against (25% of the voters) could rescind. As the majority was higher, the same ratio with which it passed would be needed to rescind- i.e. if 70% voted yea, then 70% of the minority voting against (which is 30%) or 21% of the total vote could rescind any bad law. There are here two options: a) Non voters could not vote to rescind- they had already said that they "did not care" by not voting, or b) consider their non vote a NO and allow them to vote to rescind. I favor the latter as the more ways to get rid of restrictions and bad laws, the better. The least number of rules the more social freedom.



            The courts also have become isolated from the general populace that they were designed to serve. They are not answerable to the public from whom the rights are "delegated" for their actions. In particular the U.S. Supreme court is in ethical violation of the very constitution it swore to uphold in at least a dozen ways. The constitutional "right to petition for redress of grievances" comes to mind, and the very concepts of Writ of Certiorari, Sovereign Immunity, & numerous judicial decisions which are in reality legislative, judicially writing "law" have destroyed the credibility and the worth of the court system to most of society. The 10th amendment if applied would virtually solve the "balanced budget" crisis by reduction of the federal government by more than half. The court system has become an unpredictable circus, not a predictable means of enforcing delegated rights. Their decisions should be concise and clear to the average man; they are not. Every petition deserves a full and clear answer, even if the answer is just a reiteration and confirmation of the lower court decisions. This is not done by the Supreme Court - They have become so removed from reality that they are perceived as arrogant, inflicting their own political beliefs, as opposed to delegated ethics. Acceptable political opinion seems to have become a requirement to be appointed, politics first, and a politically correct vocabulary going along with current special interests. While I do not doubt their good intentions, they after all are unusually intelligent people who have risen to the top of their profession, and they do have to rationalize their actions to face themselves in the mirror each day, I do reserve the right to criticize their errors, and suggest, even demand, corrections.


            How can the population take over control from the entrenched judicial mess, without bloodshed, and "The Year they hung the lawyers" as has been suggested in one book? I am not sure how to make such a bloodless revolution, as parasites rarely will release their victim, let go, without the threat of death involving at least a few deaths to make the threat real. The recent bombings, etc. I fear, are the tip of that iceberg of dissatisfaction. An even more important question is can a "democratic" solution without trial by combat be found?



Today lawyers are parasites on the problems of others, they cause more disagreement rather than settling & healing problems. "If there is one lawyer in town, he starves. If there are two lawyers then they both get rich" -Their incentive it to promote conflict rather than to settle it. Are you here to help with the solution or are you part of the problem? They are part of the problem. In the judicial system some harmful positive feedback comes from the lawyers. Their incentive MUST be to resolve difference short of the court itself. As it is, because of complexity introduced by these lawyers themselves in unethical LEGISLATIVE positions, you must hire one of them to obtain justice, "to hire justice!" - an oxymoron. I can not express enough contempt for that concept. The recent O.J.Simpson trial did nothing to improve the image of lawyers and the courts either. In theory they are "admitted to the bar" as executive branch members but as part of the court system to help the judge find truth by presenting facts and law, and thus from the truth obtain equity.

            In reality they represent neither society nor the court, but are paid by their client, to DISTORT truth for the benefit of the client. They are not answerable to the public by any means such as voting, and thus are totally out of control. This extreme violation of ethics can be, and must be halted. "The year they hung the Lawyers" has been suggested, and the current violence, bombings, and "militia", "people's courts" etc. are symptoms of a very sick society. The lawyers are carriers of the disease.


            Negative personal incentive will help: allowing payment no higher than some fraction of the hourly salary of the presiding judge is one easily instituted way of limiting their present malpractice. Since they are in theory under the judge's control, the limit on their pay is logical. Then also another check and balance would be to provide all actually required "executive" legal advise as part of the court system itself.  This would help dramatically; make them an executive part of the court system, paid a salary by the public. In a criminal case offer two lawyers, allowing the accused to select which attorney HE wishes; the other to be the prosecution.

            Further the less work they are required to for their salary the better for them, giving incentive in the right direction to solve the case as soon as possible. That stops incentive to litigate, and for "contingency fees", etc. 


            The rules of procedure, and the system must be simple enough for anyone to understand and within use of any normal citizen, and the system must be answerable to all members of the public, individually and collectively.


CONSPIRACY and Separation of powers.

            In theory we have had Separation of Executive, Judicial and Legislative powers, with a check & balance to keep all three branches under control.


            This also has failed. The lawyers under this theory must be in ONE and only ONE branch. Surprisingly to some people that is the executive branch, as represented by the prosecuting attorney & defense attorney. No lawyer should be allowed to move to a judicial position from the executive branch without a lengthy period of "sterilization" of at least 2 years, and more probably 4 years where he does not practice law. Ditto waiting periods for moves to legislative branch, from either judicial or executive branch. I would suggest that 2 years wait was needed to become a Representative, and 6 years wait for Senator that being the term of office.


            This same logic also implies that no member of a legislative branch could transfer to executive, or judicial without similar waiting periods. If we are to have separate branches, let's SEPARATE them so that they are truly independent and in opposition.


GOVERNMENT IS AN ANTONYM OF LIBERTY and FREEDOM The verb "to Govern" implies telling other people what they can and can not do. This removes free choice, and thus the diversity and variety necessary to have growth and positive change in society. From that point of view the best government is the least government. A certain minimal level of government is required to correct and heal the social errors that people make. We always have people who will be criminals, and do unethical things. These things that harm OTHER people frequently require retaliatory force. The government is a repository for retaliatory force to control, limit and minimize its use. So long as government is restricted to this clearly defined role, it is a necessary social function. When it strays into other areas, trying to do things that it should NOT do, then it virtually always is socially destructive. As clearly stated by several theorists in the 18th  century Government is must be virtually confined to a purely  negative role of trying to prevent harm, as opposed to trying to do good. So long as it reacts to punish and deter bad, unethical, criminal behavior it functions well. When it tries to do good things, it robes us of our virtue, incentive, and thus destroys individuality and individual progress, & since society is made of individuals it also destroys overall social progress as well. 






Home ] Up ] Feedback ] Contents ] Search ]

Send mail to with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright 2002 The Nexial Institute