SOCIAL ENGR 4          

Home Up Feedback Contents Search











1) The strangle hold of excessive government and excessive taxes must be halted with a 10% maximal(gross) tax paid by any one individual.

Any time in the history of over 150 civilizations that the government has been allowed to increase taxes from a minimal level of about 6% to 7%, in any case well under 10%; to more than 10% the government has gotten out of control, has become parasitic, and destructive of society. Society needs liberty - freedom to grow. Any time that government imposes too many restrictions, it causes a stagnation and collapse of the civilization. Growth and prosperity happen when individuals are self responsible & rely upon their own productivity. Collectivism in any form (below) destroys this initiative, and the creativity necessary for positive change and growth.  Thus the government itself must be restricted to minimal loss of liberty by restricting its finances to the bare necessities of correcting emergency social errors.

2) Vote on expenditure should be proportional to tax paid.

          No tax paid = no vote on where to spend the taxes.

The person creating value either by production of goods, or new thoughts / information- (information & thought processes are valuable) or by offering services, is always the person best able to control that value.  When wealth / value is taken in the form of taxes, then the control of where that is to be spent should be given to the person from whom it came. He will vote how, in HIS opinion, best to expend those resources He created for HIS optimal benefit, thus maximizing overall value and wealth. In this way we tend to prevent theft in the form of taking taxes from one person, and giving it to someone else who has not given something of value to the person taxed. Everyone deserves to determine precisely the expenditure of taxes proportional to the taxes they themselves paid. Those who do not contribute to taxes deserve exactly what they contributed in determination of expenditure: zero.


3) Prohibition on all socialism /collectivism, period, no variations.

COLLECTIVISM: We must apply the reflexive ethic to the value system itself and to the wealth involved. Immature people (thieves) want to control and expend the unearned, thus stolen accumulated wealth of others by social - political force.  This is a form of collectivism. Collectivism in all of its forms going under the names of socialism or communism, or Nazism etc. has always failed, and is a major cause of the decline and fall of over 150 civilizations.  These collective systems fail since they involves theft. 


4) We need several ways to get rid of laws, sunshine provisions (expiration dates for all laws, with no exceptions).

While we have many ways to enact laws, we have not had adequate ways to get rid of bad or out-dated laws. This was realized in the last few decades, and resulted in "sunshine laws" which terminated laws automatically if they were not re- enacted. Note that the word LAW has been redefined here from a codification of actions, to a minimal abstract theory from which we can deduce actions. None the less all "laws" should be re-examined more frequently than we now do.

The total number and complexity of laws grows over the life of a civilization, 1) from a simple (constitutional) basis that everyone can understand, 2) adding a secondary layer that still is comprehensible to virtually everyone, 3) adding a third layer that is only partially comprehensible and usually self contradictory, and finally 4) adding a fourth layer that is so complex that no single persons could possibly understand it, largely in part because of its overspecialization and multiply self contradictory nature.

The intent here is to limit law to level 2,- a minimal code that is fully comprehensible to everyone. If the public does not know the law how can they obey the laws other than by chance? We must limit law to what the public can comprehend. Complexity is our social enemy here.


5) Courts must not be allowed to exclude facts in considering truth.

 The exclusion of evidence is one of the strangest perversions of justice that has ever been invented.  With the very best of intentions to prevent violation of civil rights, the courts have violated their most fundamental purpose, removing the foundation of justice.

They certainly should punish police or other offenders for unethical actions, violation of civil  rights done in obtaining facts, but they may NOT ethically exclude ANY valid data. Exclusion of truth excludes equity, and defeats justice. This practice of exclusion of fact has helped made a mockery of our court system.



Courts must be able to "compel" testimony - but not by torture. They may ask the defendant to explain his version of the story, and may note and make conclusions about probable reasons for any refusal to testify on any given case. Those assumptions as to what the court will assume should a person refuse to testify should be clearly stated at the time that testimony is refused. Indeed the prosecution should be required to show reasonable cause to compel this testimony before it can be required, but the presence of a crime where someone else is harmed and the strong suspicion that the defendant is the cause of the crime / harm is sufficient reason to require testimony. 


7) Limit terms in office, including civil service.

To avoid "elitist" thinking where the government is made up of an "elite" class, everyone must go home and live under the system that has been legislated. It is desirable that there be no life long professional politicians, and no professional civil service. Particularly here should be NO retirement from public service, NONE!  The burden of "entitlement" (in a fully developed "mature" society meaning really that they are NOT really entitled to the "dole") has destroyed numerous civilizations such as Rome. Thus it is obvious that this should be prohibited right from the start. Civic duty MUST be a virtue, limited to what the persons can freely volunteer and not a life long occupation.




8) Ex post facto laws are ethical and should be allowed.

If something is unethical, it is always unethical. If something is ethical then it always will be ethical. The concept of prohibition of ex post facto laws is inherently flawed. By going to basic ethics, this ceases to be a problem, since people who for example stole by some new unique "confidence" scheme would still be responsible for their theft whether codified or not.


(SUB NOTE since conditions change with time, what is ethical might change. I can not name any case, but the assumption that ethics are constant deserves further examination. This is an induction, a generalization, which goes from the specific to the general and I can not prove it. Thus it deserves to be noted as an assumption and induction, going by experience from specifics to a generalization.)


9) Try to stop polarization,

Polarization is a step on the way to violence. Violence usually is a last resort of those who are incompetent. Polarization also is a sure sign of immaturity, and childish behavior. By using this as a danger sign, we can usually detect the immaturity in advance and take appropriate actions to halt the process before it becomes violent.


TOLERANCE is the opposite of polarization, and the recognition of the "rights" of others is a sure way of avoiding polarization.


10) Min & max wages ratio set for social (corporate) group projects.

The minimal and maximal WAGES in social groups should be to no more than 25:1 (or some other pre-determined value) top WAGE to bottom WAGE. Note WAGE, is not income from self employment or sole proprietorships or even partnerships. There must be an exemption for sole owners of business BUT NOT corporation officers, who are part of a socially created group. This applies to corporations and must includes ALL benefits, including "fringe" benefits, free lunches, trips, etc. The theory here is to prevent excessive UNEARNED accumulation of wealth as one elite group become rich from the efforts of those whom they supervise. Each person needs reward proportionate to their own contribution. It is exceedingly rare that a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) really earns even a 25:1 wage relative to his base employees.

This restriction is not true with free enterprise and individual enterprise; Henry Ford type invention of production. The problem here is potential interference with free trade / values. Thus the social range is set ONLY for socially created "individuals" for corporations, not individual people and their private dealings.


11) Set wages of Civil service to some smaller fraction of average wage in private practice for similar work, i.e about 85%.

This is so the civil servant will be paid a "fair" wage but also so that they cannot get rich, or expect unrealistic pay increases, but also may expect fair increases. They are doing a "civic" duty so should be rewarded by pride in part for that civic duty. If they do not feel pride and that are helping, then let them get out and let someone else do that job! Thus the lower pay is meant to discourage  anyone motivated by other than social pride to "go get a real job!"

12) ASSIGN severe punishment for offering or accepting bribes, or baksheesh, in any from.

Public officers must not accept ANY gift, gratuity etc. including any form of campaign funds. The potential for theft of public values by conflict of interest is obvious. This is an attempt to eliminate unethical political influence by eliminating the exchange of values before it starts.


Suggested punishment includes permanent exclusion from all political processes: i.e. voting, lobbying, even speaking out and offering their opinion on political matters.  They have proven their ethics were flawed, so must be excluded from the process. For minor breaches this might be reduced to five years but only removing the restriction then if they demonstrate that they understand what they did wrong. They may not vote, make no public speeches, may not contribute in any way to politics, receive no payment from the public. They have abused power ethics thus we exclude them from all forms of power, and reject their ethic from further "contagion" where others might catch their social disease.

13) Absolute prohibition of baksheesh /bribery etc. & paid for lobbying!

Concerned people must be able to tell their point of view, and provide information, but we should must prohibit professional lobbyists, and tolerate no gifts or funds for special interest groups of ANY SORT. Bribery was the downfall of numerous civilizations, e.g. ROME, "A City for Sale" where introductions to politically powerful people were sold. Selling power / control is a form of theft.

14) It is necessary to keep "mush headed" immature thinking out of the political process. 

It is possible to evaluate social maturity, and ethical ability by test / and by behavior; and to grant political privilege such as the right to vote and later the right to hold office by tested or demonstrated maturity. This can also be used to prevent immature governmental officers, since they would not be not eligible for office. The age limits in the Constitution were an attempt to do this. It is proposed that a tested age as opposed to an arbitrary chronological age is perhaps better, but some such maturity test needs to be in place.


This implies that a majority of women (77%) and a distinct minority (23%) of effeminate liberal men, should not be allowed to vote on issues such as COLLECTION of taxes that might involve redistribution of wealth which is part of their ethical system. As above also, only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote where those taxes are to be spent, and only to the precise extent of their contribution.


15) No public licenses, "labor" Unions (applying coercion), or collective / social interference of any sort must be tolerated in private "contractual" matters.

This applies to PRIVATE interactions. The government or any social group may ethically ask for a test or proof of competence before it contracts for services, thus a certification is proper for PUBLIC  practice. The "license" concept is NOT valid since it prohibits actions until a individual proves he is competent. How does the person obtain skill without practice?

Contrary: the Medical license and the Admission to the Bar or Engineer's or Architect's license have been so badly abused to establish a monopoly for the sole benefit of the licensee as opposed to the theory of "to protect the public" that all such restrictive practice licenses must be condemned. The concept of restrictive practice license fails by failure of delegation of rights. We must ask who may be harmed? If I want to deal with anyone, say as a M.D. or Lawyer, then it is my right to do so without hinderance as I am the only one who might be harmed. I should seek with prudence some certification or competence, but that is MY problem, and no one else's. They lack any right whatsoever to delegate. There is no OTHER person who might be harmed to allow them to restrict MY choice by way of delegating rights to a restrictive license.


The public may ethically offer NON-RESTRICTIVE certifications, but may NOT ethically restrict anyone's choice as to from whom they will purchase advise or services.  The courts may prohibit an individual from offering of any similar future services if someone HARMS a client. That is just punishment to prevent future harm. But if I wish to pay less for lower quality services that is my right. No one else has a "right" to force my value system.


16) SOCIETY Can interfere with land, or natural resources, any property use which was NOT ACTUALLY CREATED by the owner, if it effects public interest - particularly FUTURE Public interest at some LATER time. 

  But they may NOT take earned value without just compensation.


Men have been converting public value into private wealth for millennia, And this may be ethical as they develop a previously unknown or previously unrecognized resource.  The persons who discovers a gold mine deserves reward for his discovery. But the thief who logs a public forrest, without just compensation is just a common thief. The vendor who sets up shop on a public sidewalk is converting that public space to his private use, and is no less a thief. We must be able to preserve public natural resources for the future, and must be able to prevent short sighted immature fools from grabbing "now" what will be needed, or more valuable, later.


All forms of conversion of public value to private wealth should be examined carefully, and halted to the extent that they are unearned and theft. Whether a law existed is not the question, only theft from the public.


CONTRARY: If a person actually crates a service or a new property then they must have absolute control over that created property, specifically including intellectual property for a limited time. This is the concept of copyright and patent which have worked in the past so well. But the temptation for extending these too far also must be resisted. The balance of private reward and public value must be weighed, and the trend for now is too far in the direction of "special interest" private pressures.


17) Eliminate Sovereign Immunity, Divine Right of Kings, Writ of Certiorari, etc. all carry over "traditional" artifices from upward delegation and all legislative decisions concocted by courts.  

All "court made law" needs to be eliminated. We actually need a court to control courts, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? We also need a court with the sole job of making courts responsible for their actions. The courts must be immune from harassment as long as they are even vaguely reasonable. They must be given the maximal possible benefit of doubt in good faith. They will err, but the system should itself should take care of close and difficult judgement calls.


But when the courts are totally out of control, as now, we need a way of the public being able to clean out the whole irrational mess, & holding a judge responsible for his irresponsibility. Particularly the Federal Court system is intolerable with elitist collective "law by court" which is obviously wrong to the average person. These judges were appointed, not elected, and thus are so far removed from the people that they have become "Great Judges" in the Roman "Magus Strata" sense. These "Great Judges" became so obnoxious that the Romans had to eliminate their power, and it is time to bring the Federal system under control as well. This applies to numerous other courts world wide.


As a way of elimination of "court made law", it is proposed that the legislature guard its powers by passing a law making it a felony for any judge to pre-empt legislative prerogatives, thus requiring the trial and mandatory removal of any judge who strays into clearly legislative domain. This is a defense of territory reaction, but something is clearly needed to halt these excursion. Even the state can legislate this action as a felony, and while they can not remove from office, they can assure that federal judges committing this felony preform their office from a jail cell.


18) No elitist groups, telling (by force) others what to value or what to do must be allowed. While it is prudent to LISTEN to wise men, we must not be tyrannized by them, and the ultimate free choice must rest with each individual person.


Value in the form of money or wealth is power. There is a problem of how to limit the abuse of power of $ Yen etc.?  Wealthy individuals just by having wealth will have power to coerce others to so what they want them to do. If that association is voluntary, to obtain benefits form the accumulated wealth, or at least reasonably so, then that was part of what they earned when they earned wealth. The problem arises when these people tyrannically start dictating their values to others, & abusing power. They have an absolute right NOT to exchange value with ANY other people who have differing value systems. We must NOT fall into the trap of applying OUR values which may include free exchange regardless of "race religious creed or ethnic origin" to them. Society has gone too far now in forcing its collective values on those who we think are bigoted. Thus society itself has now become hypocritically bigoted.  We must allow/ encourage diversity, even extreme and to a point obnoxious diversity.


The influence of competent individuals should be more than that of less competent people; and totally incompetent beings like children, idiots, and morons should probably have no vote at all. This leaves a question of how to establish vote by ability and which abilities.


Ability is not just "IQ", or Maturity, Emotional Quotient, empathy, or education, or income, or power. It is possible to assign some degree of ability by the years of education completed or by a test. For example I would suggest that the GED (General Education Diploma) should be considered roughly equivalent in terms of voting ability to a normal High School Education. Because on the average those without a high school degree will not be able to contribute to society - they will consume 100% or more of what they produce, I would suggest that below High School education (GED) no vote at all should be allowed unless earned by some other criteria.


Added votes: For military service add one vote. They are risking or have risked life and limb for nation, so they deserve social recognition of their service. For an accredited 4 year college degree add one vote. For a PhD, MD etc. add one vote. For payment in any one year of taxes indicating higher ability by higher production, paying into the society at a higher rate than normal, add one vote for x 5 average tax, and one more at x 25 average tax and one more at X 125 average tax etc. (each factor of 5 adds one vote eg x 625 would be 4 added or 5 total votes unless other criteria added more).


Deduct votes for criminal record, repeated misdemeanors would thus take away political influence, and at some point if lack of ethics dictates remove all political influence.


ALARM: I can also foresee this being abused to "stuff the ballot box". This sort of fraud can also be somewhat minimized by going to direct plebiscite, suggested below, and doing away with so called  "representative" government which does not represent, but is a tool for theft, and power.


20) Eliminate all governmental controlled charity given from taxes, no welfare, dole, retirement, redistribution of wealth of any sort under any name should be permitted.


21) No export OR import taxes of any sort should be allowed.

No artificial barriers against free trade, or communication of any sort, particularly protectionism or monopolies must be tolerated. Note knowledge is valuable so censorship of ANY sort is also prohibited; Censorship is always bad, even to "protect children" as that is job of parents.


22) No "demonstrations" to create fear, or exert power (implies force) over others will be tolerated. This includes labor unions specifically.


The Right to peaceful assembly to communicate must be protected, but any advocacy of violence ends the PEACEFUL intent and thus drops the intent into an unethical threat.

Assembly and discussion / communication on HOW to avoid violence is very necessary, to bring threats out and expose them. Thus many "marches" of today and most union activities are in a grey area. When the labor unions do anything but communicate, such as make threats against others who want to work then they themselves become a threat and should have counter force applied to them in direct proportion to the degree of force they are trying to use.


23) Set up one new branch of government with power solely to control & limit government.

This new branch would have no power at all over regular citizens, only over employees of the government or those who interacted with them. Its purpose is to eliminate unnecessary, corrupt, outdated, or incompetent workers or branches. It would also enforce the 10th amendment; all powers not delegated by the constitution are prohibited. But also its job is to stop all corruption in all branches: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - It is time we answered that question.


24) Homogenization, = loss of diversity, avoid homogenization.

     DIVERSITY is Valuable:   Diversity is in and of itself a value.

People must be allowed diverse opinions and values. In fact would not our world be a dreary place if we all held the same values, all wore the same blue suits and drove the same color and make of automobile, ate the same things every day etc.?

We need to be not only tolerant of diverse cultures and groups, but actually to encourage them in as far as they are not "exclusive" and destructive of other groups, or cultures. Variety is the spice of life, so we need more variety.


25) NEVER act for REVENGE, Vengeance, Malice etc.;

Retaliatory force and punishment are for prevention or restitution and thus are valid; however, use of force for revenge is pure destruction without positive motive, and must be avoided. There is a cause, someone else was harmed, and it is quite proper to act to prevent future harm. The reflexive ethic can- should be applied to resolve a theoretical conflict in values. But destruction without future gain is just plain stupid.


26) Generally do not allow laws or rules that pertain to only a minority or one subdivision of society.

Laws must be for everyone, "Special interest laws" that do not pertain to everyone are inherently questionable and virtually always unethical.


27) Do not protect people from themselves.

These types laws fail for lack of delegation. There is no person who had a "right" other than the individual, & thus you are taking away his free choice. You may personally find his choices wrong or obnoxious, but you are not harmed! The individual has a "right" to go to hell after his own fashion. We must preserve diversity of values even to the extreme of allowing people to commit suicide. We certainly should try "gentle persuasion" to convince them of the folly of their choices, even to perhaps the extent of short term coercion to halt precipitous bad actions that have long term (permanent) consequences. But in the end if they persist despite warnings of the consequences, then they must be allowed to learn by suffering the consequences of their actions. At least others may learn from their bad results, - if nothing else we can always use it as a bad example. "An intelligent man learns from his errors. A WISE man learns from the errors of others. (SIDE NOTE we also should be careful to record all our errors as well as our successes- as we actually learn more from our failures than our successes, - in fact it seems that humanity seems determined to test every bad possibility so as to learn by eliminating all possible bad actions!)


CONTRARY: One may enact limit rules for prudent, or imprudent behavior toward children, NOT ADULTS!  Children by definition are incompetent, and need protection from harm, particularly from themselves.


28) Define "ADULT" by maturity level, not arbitrary age.

This is testable, including observation of actions, so grant freedom of action by demonstrated self responsibility - NOT AGE, and revokable for bad actions, or proposed bad actions.



This word often is used to trap someone into doing what someone else thinks that they should do, NOT what duty they impose on themselves. Governmental "forced" obligations must ONLY be used to complete a "contract" that has been assumed, and note that must include mutuality when the contract was made.


30) Marriage contract obligations may not include slavery.

Government may not interfere in ANY way with marriage. It may facilitate marriage by offering registration, a form of publication of a change in status, for those who wish to do so, and may enforce any short term contractual obligations clearly assumed, but may NOT ask for any involuntary "slavery" past a four year term (this is arbitrary but of correct order of maximal obligation which should be tolerated). Child support in particular, must never be tolerated.


31) Same sex "marriage"is contradictory to the basic purpose of marriage: To have and to RAISE children.

This is a confused error forgetting the fundamental purpose of marriage: to provide a stable secure environment to RAISE CHILDREN. If they wish to cohabit that is their right, and pointedly none of my or anyone else's business. So long as it remains private, it is their business alone. When it goes PUBLIC that alters things.


If they are teachers in a school and openly advocate this, trying to convince children to do as they do, then they cross over a boundary. They have free speech in PUBLIC, with adults who may properly judge their actions, but not as a public employee in teaching children who are presumably incompetent in such matters and who do not have the ethical basis to judge their possible errors in their immature value system.





A man and a woman sometimes just can not live together. It may be dominantly the fault of one individual or the other, but usually it reflects mutual blame, polarization, and immaturity to some degree. We must treat divorce as any other breach of contract and settle on the spot without any long term future obligation being imposed. The physical property must be equitably divided and affairs separated.


NOTE future obligations may be voluntarily assumed, BUT may NOT be inflicted by society. All community property laws are questionable at best, they are arbitrary and thus lack any means of rational determination of who contributed what to the marriage, financially or otherwise. The assumptions of collectivism communism and equality of ability inherent in this are incorrect ethically, so this works only by chance, and it fails more than it succeeds - it is a flaw causing incentive for added divorce. Women frequently are able to get out of assumed contractual responsibilities, particularly sexual duties to spouse, and to obtain unearned and uncontrollable value from such arbitrary laws. They sold their sexual accessibility wholesale, (prostitution is retail sexual sale) to obtain support for themselves and their children. If they continue to get this UNEARNED support (unearned = unethical) after they default then they have stolen unearned values. Society allows and even encourages this sort of theft, but without recognition even that it is theft, and they are thieves without being called that and thus they opt for this incentive.


No person, even a child, has any "RIGHT" to support from any other person. Neither the helplessness of the child, nor his "needs" in any way open the door to enslavement of anyone else. The person who voluntarily supports the child also must have custody period unless otherwise VOLUNTARILY agreed by the parents or guardians for the good of the children. Society may remove guardianship of helpless people from irresponsible, or incapacitated or deceased parents, but in so doing they must also reassign responsibility as well. Only individuals can exhibit responsibility. This appears in society only as individual acts, not as collective acts. Social responsibility is a myth so the guardianship must be given to some other individual. Again the very concepts of child support or alimony are improper, and the financial incentives of today promote divorce.



They can provide real service worth value. They should /may offer a paid for service, to settle disagreements short of violence, but the present monopolistic system is completely off foundation and thus "baseless" - Its history has allowed inversion of responsibility reward. Eliminate exclusive "Admission to the bar" and go with the Massachusetts theory that every citizen should be able to argue his own case. If the proceedings are complicated by the system being too complex, then simplify the system to where anyone can use it. If it is not for the common citizens, then it is not delegated, and thus not ethical.


34) FORCED redistribution of wealth from its creator to another person who does not provide an equal value in either service or product to the first person, no matter what the second person's "needs or Wants or desires" is unethical.

Neither one individual nor any group of people should be forced to support any other person or group. This applies even a helpless child, or to the elderly. Slavery and theft implicit in this, taking wealth / value by force and redistribution of value, no matter how good the cause in YOUR opinion, is unethical.  Taxes are involuntary and always have a gun as the ultimate argument, thus are taken by force.  Unless the value taken is in repayment for a service or for property exchanged, it is just another form of theft.


The needs of even a helpless individual do not enter into the ethics of the argument. One person's needs or desires have no bearing on theft. While this emotional appeal may be used to elicit charity, its use in a governmental sense is both despicable and irrelevant. If YOU want to support someone else, you may do so. But do not force anyone else to do so. This is inflicting YOUR value system on others on someone else, & thus is unethical. If you can convince the other people VOLUNTARILY to donate to your cause, then you both practice virtue. As soon as we go from elective, free will, giving based upon personal value systems to mandatory we have lost our virtue.



Babies, children, the sick or infirm, and elderly people may require immediate actions to save their lives. Society in the form of the government may and should take emergency actions for short term to prevent irreversible harm, such as death. This includes the police department, and the fire department, and even acts to prevent death by starvation or lack of medical aid etc. -This emergency action must be very short term only until someone who else can be found to take over charity. Emergency actions in emergency situations are part of government.


{THIS MUST BE LIMITED & TIGHTLY RESTRICTED or it will explode into welfare} This exception to the rule, must be limited in time, and if any person tries, as they will, to turn the short term emergency into a permanent welfare situation then they must be allowed to die or suffer the full consequences of their repeated actions, or their own inability to support themselves. The world does NOT owe anyone a living, and any one who thinks that nature should support them should be required to try to collect it from mother nature.



Overall many people, individuals within society, for millennia have been willing to adopt babies, children in distress, orphans etc. Virtue has overall worked, so let it have a chance again.


This is the place for CHARITY, and the private institutions of yesteryear such as church orphanages societies, and similar other institutions which were ethical; perhaps even practicing the highest ethical standard. But when government took over and put them out of business, then the government robbed us of our individual virtue, & intruded unethically into individual personal development.


NOTE this is where the problem of unwed mothers can be addressed. If they wish to assume the responsibilities of raising a child then, they must be free to do so. But SOCIETY, using force to obtain value to help them, may not contribute to their long term upkeep. She may wish to allow some other person to pay for her upkeep as a precondition to adoption of the baby, and then they raise the baby / child. But the one who pays the bills, as always, also must have the control. (responsibility = reward).


37) INCOMPETENT (permanent mental detectives such as idiots, morons, and imbeciles), the DISABLED, and impecunious ELDERLY:


Work houses and orphanages, private institutions, etc. have done that in the past, and should take over in the future. Get ALL government out of those areas, with the exception of a legal declaration of incompetence, and removal of self control for those who are not able to exercise self discipline by reason of senility or mental or physical disability.


Government may "facilitate" this, but the public funding must come from voluntary contributions NOT from forced taxation. Government may help to establish or facilitate such VOLUNTARY organizations as the Red Cross, etc. where people could voluntarily associate together to accomplish what in their own opinion is a worthy charity, then that is beneficial to all. Those who do NOT wish to join are not bothered, and thus relieved, and those who did join can contribute to the extent of their conscience. The key point is voluntary versus forced taking of wealth / value.






Home ] Up ] Feedback ] Contents ] Search ]

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