Monday, January 30, 2012

Are We Responsible?

 We kicked off 2012 with the following -
Yearly Theme: Are we responsible for our own actions?
This question becomes the fundamental litmus test for most every action and decision in the future.
Following this, we move to the dictionary, that long forgotten instrument that standardizes communication among us lowly proles, that we might understand one another when we converse about, ya know, things.
Responsible -
1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to or for ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
2.involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
Policy -
1. a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.: We have a new company policy.
2. a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation's foreign policy.
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
And to explore these definitions, we move to our story -
Mustang Public Schools officials said a ninth-grader snapped a photo of a snoozing substitute with a cellphone last Friday at Mustang Mid-High School.The student was later suspended.
However, officials said, "A student may possess a telecommunication device while on school premises, but the use of a telecommunication device is not permitted during the school day."
The Real Effect
Let's begin by assuming a random person, Bob, exists. Bob, according to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, is born with a certain set of rights. We'll identify them with letters, ABCD. Now simply by virtue of the fact the he exists, Bob possesses these rights.

For the sake of argument, Bob gets married to Jane and in doing so, he gives control of right "D" to Jane. This ownership is conditional upon the marriage and its validity. At this point, Bob has rights ABC but has subjected D to Jane. Bob might permanently or temporarily transfer these rights. For example, Bob has given control of his finances to Jane and in doing so Jane has authority over his finances. Why? Because Bob gave them to Jane.

So now Jane has ABCD + (Bob)D rights. But in gaining (Bob)D, she also gained (Bob)D responsibility. Put simply, Jane cannot resource pillage Bob's rights and then throw Bob to the side of the road because those  rights come with responsibilities. If she were to do this, she would rightly be reviled as a thief and fraud.

To cope with this, Jane then decides to implement a policy that states she can take all of Bob's money and ditch him. Does this have any bearing on her responsibility? No, of course not. Only Bob can release her of that and he has done no such thing. So Jane's personal policy that states it's ok to rob Bob is entirely irrelevant.

So returning to our original story, parents have given right "D" to a school to educate their children. They pay for this via taxation and as dutiful employers, have a right to a certain product. I think we can all assume that "sleeping" is not that product. So the recipient of one of these services, the student, documents poor performance utilizing his cell phone. In essence, the teacher is committing fraud against the parents and student.

When confronted with this information, the school blows the dust off it's policy book and states - Yes, you may possess a phone, but you may not use it. And since you used it, you broke our policy and we get to assess a penalty against you.

What?!? Should be the correct response to the school. Are you nuts? You caused the condition that required documentation (camera) to prove that you're robbing us! For you to attempt to preemptively punish us is abject lunacy!

One would think that this is the way people would think, but in this ever "complicated" (read as uninformed) world in which we live, the charlatans are running the show.

Prove things? They often scoff. We'll make it so hard for you to do that, you're stuck with us no matter WHAT we give you! And if you succeed, we'll ruin you.

And at this point, the problem and its symptoms come squarely into view.

Who is responsible?

Let's follow the chain....
Parents -> Government -> School -> Administrator -> Teacher

Ah, we see that the correct party is being held to the fire. In response to this, we have the school attempting to free itself from that responsibility. But a nasty little thing happens when you try to get away from responsibility, you lose your rights as ownership defaults to the last person to possess them.This in turn creates many symptoms which often become crisis.

Parents -  Why should we take our children to school, why should we pay taxes on a non service, why should we trust government AT ALL?

In failing to defend the parents rights, the school has destroyed the justification for its very existence.

Additionally, they have created a conflict of interest for the administrators. Just who do you support, the student or the teacher. After all, the policy says no using phones. And those teachers have it really hard. It is this conflict that turns a productive relationship into an unproductive one. This is demonstrated in the fact that the child is now less educated. Apply this out for a few generations and soon you have a system that takes money from one group and gives it to another for the sole purpose of existence. That is properly understood as a leech. And really, other then fish, who likes leeches?

Government should exist to enforce the ramifications of the contracts agreed upon. Not to draw up new ones itself or to direct policy. Quite frankly it should have no pony at this show.

Yet here we stand in 2012 and people just don't get it.
Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.
Got that? Growth is half of what it was last year and that's only because government is spending money like an 18 year old stripper. $52,409 is what each person "owes" the Federal government. But do they really owe this? The correct answer is yes and no. And therein is where people usually check out. 

You see the banks via the Federal Reserve have stolen rights, in the case of Bob, rights C and D and left us with A and B. Additionally, they dislike the responsibility that goes along with those rights. The government, our employees, cannot simultaneously claim that they are "in charge" or "leaders" while passing the bill to us. In doing so, they are seizing the power via fraud, spending the spoils on junk (lots of it), lying to you about the situation and when you finally find out, they try to imprison or kill you.

You do not owe fraudulent debt. Period. You did not incur that debt, they did. Many times in complete defiance of your stated wishes. They are rogue. They are usurpers. 
The correct way to deal with these ilk is to 1) Expose them 2) Arrest them 3) Try them and finally 4) Administer justice

Until we do this, we are just wasting time and resources.

No comments: