un-citoyen

[un-citoyen]

Open Letter

It’s no secret that things are more different now than they have ever been before.

A definite cause for this problem is definitions. Our world is objective, and it’s this fact that allows us to think rationally. It allows us to use logic and debate topics. Could you learn and grow from our world if everything was based off of someone’s personal opinion? Of course not. People are unique, people are different, and people have opinions. But at some point, a line must be drawn. We must decide that some things will remain this way, regardless of personal opinion.

Our world revolves around math. Numbers make up our arguments and our reasoning. Our knowledge grows from these variables. But they are definite. 2+2=4. This is not up for debate. If math was subjective, it would collapse.

Government is objective. The role of government is objective. There are certain things that a government must and mustn’t do, despite personal opinions. Can we all agree that the government is supposed to protect the rights of the people? Can we agree that the government should not limit the natural freedom of the people? We should.

But we don’t. Our world is squishy. It has became subjective. And just as with math, with something this complex and this diverse, a foundation of personal opinions will not stand.

Now, there are multiple ways to solve different equations in math. Different ways that people like to use. People are like this. They have different beliefs, opinions, and religions. People are different.

But the basis of the system that will govern what we can and cannot do cannot be subjective. It must be set in stone. It must be objective.

So, before we dive into this, let’s define a few things. For arguments sake, I will define government as a group of people. Their responsibilities include to only protect the rights of the people.

There is an intersection I must make. The government is made up of people, yes, but it does not control the people. It’s only duty is to make sure their rights are protected. But overall, the people rule the government.

I propose a new political system. Not a Capitalist system, not a Socialist system, not Republican, not Democratic, not Communist, not Anarchist, but a new system. A system where people may once again rule the Earth.

What I propose is a Revolution. A fresh start.

To clarify, I do not propose what is now being referred to as the Global Reset. What I propose is entirely new. Do not think of current politics as a base for my idea. This is something different, something that will take all of the good out of the different politic ideas we see and fix all of the bad. 

Just as America had a revolution in the 1700s. The way to go may not be clear, but we know what the future will not hold. The voices of the individual will not be silenced anymore. People will have control.

What I propose is a system of what is known as negative liberties. Instead of a list of the freedoms that people are granted, we will have a short list of what people may not do.

This list will not change, nor will anything new be added or removed from it. It is a list of simple things that people may not do for the sole reason that these acts interfere with other people’s rights.

People may not kill other people, for to kill another human being not only darkens the soul, but removes the victim’s right to life.

People may not steal, for to steal from another human being removes the victim’s right to private property.

Humans were born free, and by their will, they will die free. People may do what they please so long as they don’t take away these natural rights that are granted at birth.

Life is a gift. Life is incredible. We will not waste it by destroying that of others.

Think back to older times. Times of little villages, where children spent their days resting by the creek with friends. Parents talking on the way to the market to buy dinner for the night.

Times have changed since then. Medicine has advanced more than originally thought was possible. Technology plays a massive role in society today. This time is not like that time.

But it was simpler then. We needn’t go back to that time, when disease and famine killed off entire communities.

But we can learn from that.

Why have books and classes of the past if not to analyze what they did and change it? Make it better?

What we have now is not working. And that’s part of the learning. But these dark times may only become valuable if we can create something incredible from it.

Why must a higher authority regulate the minimum amount of money that is required for a job? Is each job not different? Can we truly dictate each separate individual job?

The first time a minimum wage was established in America was in 1938. What did people do before then? Must we worry and fight and kill over the pay of workers?

Hard labor with little pay is not good. I’m not here to preach that people shouldn’t get paid more then a dollar an hour. I’m here to bring up an idea.

What if it were up to the companies? What if employers were allowed to decide the minimum for their employees? We may believe this cannot work, but please, allow me to expand the idea.

If employers set their minimum wage to an incredible low pay, something that saved them fortunes, then no one could afford it. Even if people were living paycheck to paycheck, things would be incredibly tight.

Because people would be saving every penny they earn, the economy would start to go downhill. People would stop buying things. Even if there is a percentage of rich individuals, the world’s economy cannot rely solely on them.

So what would happen?

Companies would be forced to lower prices so people could afford them based on the wage they’re making. If their product isn’t being sold, then they don’t make money either.

The system would balance itself out. A private business owner’s main goal is to make money. They can’t do that if they don’t have employees. But they also can’t make money if no one is buying their product. They would be forced to either lower prices to accommodate wages, or raise the wages of the employees.

I propose a society where the government runs nothing. They do not control wages or businesses or any aspect of the community. It is run by the people and the people alone. The sole job of the government is to protect the natural rights of the people to do this.

And what if people in this government become corrupt?

This is why I propose a system based on representative voting. These representatives are elected by the people to represent the people. If the government officials become corrupt, then the representatives vote them out of office.

And what if these representatives become corrupt?

Then they are voted out of office by the people. Why would the people want those in government to be corrupt? If the people hold the power, then we don’t have to worry about.

This idea is not set in stone. It can and will change based off of experiences and the ideas of other people. But I truly believe this is a stepping stone to a better world.

I propose this idea under the name Absolism. Derived from the Latin word absolvo, meaning “release”, this will represent a turning point for our world. It will represent a time where we are released from this tyranny and power is returned to the people.

Help me change lives. This world is a big place; it is not a one man job.

Bring back power to the people.

Bring back freedom for all individuals.

Bring the Revolution.

- Lin

#politics #open letter #revolution #political #absolism #individual #power to the people #freedom #liberty #self ruling #new political party #new politics #different political party #different politics #self #people #person #change the world #absolist

[un-citoyen]

No. 5 Innocent Until Proven Guilty

      The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is an idea that has a strong foundation in our legal system. However, this wasn’t always the case, and it’s something that many people don’t see the value of.

      In a court of law in Japan, one is instantly presumed guilty, compared to America where one is presumed innocent until further evidence is given. But is there really a difference?

      Although America holds the assumption of innocent until proven guilty, we can see a clear turn in this concept when looking at the Salem Witch Trials.

      When a group of young girls began accusing people of witchcraft, those of them that were blamed were brought to court and had one of two options: confess to being a witch and spend the remaining period of their lives in prison, or deny the accusation and hang for their crime. Innocent until proven guilty was not an assumption then.

      However, when getting to the debate of innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent, the biggest argument lies in what is called the “Burden of Proof”, which essentially is looking at both sides of the argument and deciding who should have to prove their claim.

      To summarize, if two people are having a debate and one makes a claim, they will be the one who has to provide proof of their claim. If they show substantial proof, then the other person must bring proof that shows why the first person’s logic is flawed.

      In a case of court, the defense must bring proof that the accused is innocent, and the prosecution must bring proof that the accused is guilty.

      When it comes to a legal system where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the prosecution holds the burden of proof and must prove that the accused is guilty. In a system where they are guilty until proven innocent, the defense has the burden of proof and must prove that they are innocent.

      For example, in an American court system, if a person is accused of murder, everyone—respectively—is under the assumption that the accused is innocent. Therefore, the prosecution has the burden of proof and must prove their claim that the accused is actually guilty. 

      In a court system in Japan, however, the accused is automatically assumed to have killed the person, and the defense must bring adequate proof that the defendant is innocent, thus switching the burden of truth to the other side in comparison to an American court system.

      In a system of innocent until proven guilty, true criminals will be released under a lawyer providing stronger evidence than the prosecution, but this concept greatly decreases the number of innocent people who get wrongfully accused in a system of guilty until proven innocent.

      However, as times progress, a lot fewer people are being wrongfully convicted, especially thanks to technology being able to identify DNA.

      Innocent people being wrongfully convicted will happen, but it is oftentimes due to human error and, of course, corruption. In 2021, it is estimated that about 29% of wrongful convictions are the result of false confessions. There is also an estimation that in about 31% of cases, police tampered with the witness lineup and deliberately showed witnesses the wrong mugshots.

      Sometimes, the issue of innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent isn’t the biggest controversy in court. Take Canada, for example. Canada’s legal system follows the idea that there must be proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”. However, this is very subjective; “beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t have any set definition; it’s up to the decision of the judge and jury.

      Now, while I do support the idea of innocent until proven guilty, there is a rather large amount of people who are being wrongfully convicted. One prime example is the case of Brandon Moon, who was a 25-year-old college student in 1988 when he was sentenced to 75 years in prison under the punishment for rape. However, after 16 years in prison, he was released under conclusive testing of DNA that proved he was innocent.

      However, our Founding Fathers, while they were flawed just as any other man is, were incredibly brilliant people, and after having lived under the tyranny of England for so long, I can’t help but reason that they had a decent plan in mind when creating the foundation of our country.

      But if there is one flaw that I believe was their greatest, it is the belief they held that all men in the new nation wanted all of the freedoms that were granted to them. They didn't—nor could they—predict the level of corruption and bribery that we see today, nor did they compensate for men’s fear of natural life and willingness to sacrifice privacy for security.

      Our legal system was once good, especially following the belief of innocent until proven guilty, but that system is slowly starting to fall as people care less about honesty and more about results.

— Lin

#politics #america #government #innocent until proven guilty #guilty until proven innocent #political #federalist #anti federalist #governments #revolution

[un-citoyen]

No. 4 Right to Privacy and Private Property

The right to privacy and private property may seem clear in concept, but there have been many debates over these topics and what they actually mean.

You have the right to private property, but what if there is a crime that happens on your property? What happens then?

That issue is solved by the fourth amendment of the Constitution, which states, “People and their personal property cannot be searched without a warrant, issued by a judge.”

Your property may not be searched without a warrant from a judge or a just cause.

However, what happens to the right to privacy when it comes to technology? Obviously, the United States Constitution was written during a time when computers and phones and televisions weren’t around, but does that mean that we forfeit the right to privacy?

The court case Riley v. California analyzed the arrest of David Riley. Riley was pulled over because the tags on his car had expired, and when police searched his car and phone, they found evidence linking him to a shooting that happened a few weeks prior.

However, the search of his car and his phone were done without a warrant. The court was looking at the argument “Does the Fourth Amendment permit police officers to perform a warrantless search of an individual’s cell phone confiscated at the time of an arrest?”

This case later led to, inevitably, the debate of privacy vs. security.

The case established that, due to the personal information potentially stored in a phone, a warrant must first be obtained in order to search the item.

In the case, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said that “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.”

In the case of Riley v. California, as well as other cases such as Arizona v. Grant, it has been ruled that a search of a phone or other technologies may not be done unless a warrant is legally obtained.

So, even though the idea of privacy and the right of private property has taken a new meaning since the birth of the Constitution, it still applies to us today. Whether it may be physical possessions or personal devices, private property and privacy are rights that we all hold.

Now, private property may seem more like a clean-cut idea, but there’s still a lot of corruption when it comes to this ideal.

The idea of public ownership describes a political ideology where the government owns the businesses in a community and controls the means of productions.

While this may seem good on the surface, there are a lot of factors buried underneath.

Public ownership takes away the idea of private property for any individual person. Everything belongs to everybody, which means that nothing belongs to no one person.

When an individual wants to make a change, close to nothing is done to meet this need. The government makes the decisions because they control the economy, meaning that they “know” what’s best for society.

This follows the ideal of common good. One good that benefits everyone. In public ownership, the government decides the common good, seeing as they run the businesses.

However, can one man or group of men decide what is best for society? Who has the authority to do that? How can someone who is not myself decide what is best for me as an individual person?

Public ownership—like many other ideals and theories—makes the general idea sound good, but when broken down, it removes the rights of the individual.

Private property and privacy are natural rights that should not be allowed to be taken away. These are the “unalienable rights” that Jefferson wrote of in the Declaration of Independence.

Despite that, it’s easy to remove natural rights when people willingly give them up. People are always looking to trick one another, eager to gain power in whatever way they can, ethical or not. Don’t let them trick you.

John Adams is known for saying, “Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”

I have no doubt that Adams is spending his time repenting for the sacrifice he made to preserve our freedom, just to see us push it away on a silver platter.

— Lin

#politics #political #politic #federalists papers #liberty articles #observations #privacy #private property #value of privacy #privacy in technology #private #constitution #independence #freedom #liberty #common good #riley v california

[un-citoyen]

No. 3 Self-Reliance

Self-reliance is a concept that has followed the human race through history, but it seems to be declining in value. Or, at least, perceived value. Self-reliance is an incredibly powerful virtue.

In our world today, it may seem that people hate the idea of self-reliance, but in honesty, the unwarranted anger simply masks the fear behind this concept.

People are not only afraid to make decisions, but they are afraid to be alone. The risks of the world are enough reason for them to lay down and offer their decisions up to a higher power.

In some religions, this is a common idea. Put your trust in God and believe what he has said. However, these religions still portray the idea of working hard. Saint Augustine is credited with saying, “Pray as though everything depended upon God. Work as though everything depended on you.”

There has to be a balance between trust and work. Faith and independence can work together, but one cannot overpower the other.

However, when it comes to the world today, the higher power that people offer their lives to is oftentimes not a God, but a person. Not a certain person, though. Really, it’s just whoever comes along with a claim to power and intelligence.

People are not only willing to push away their freedom, but eager to as well. Self-reliance is not only a gift, but a natural idea that people are born with.

Change is something that most people fear or share a hatred for, but it’s something that will test your abilities. When everything in the world is varying from idea to idea, you are the only constant in your life.

When it comes down to it, you are the only person you can trust. The amount of people who would make a decision with the sole reason to help you is incredibly small.

Society is handing over their free will to people who not only don’t care about them, but whose goals are to hurt them in the long run.

Self-reliance is what will save you from the world around you. When you rely on yourself for your own life, you will never be disappointed or surprised. 

Being completely dependent on anybody but yourself is a crime against the life you were given. Of course, you may accept help from others—and offer yours to them—but your life mustn’t be subject to someone else’s decisions.

Free will and choice are what separate us from animals, and it’s something that we mustn’t just throw away like a simple piece of trash.

Value your life and the dependence you have on yourself because if people continue to give it up, self-reliance will soon not even be an option.

When you depend upon everyone, no one will help you succeed. You will fall with the rest of society.

— Lin 

#politics #the articles of liberty #political #self-reliance #self reliance #observations

[un-citoyen]

No. 2 Community vs. the Individual

One of the biggest issues in the world that hardly gets addressed head-on is: Can you be a part of society while still being your own person? Can you function in a community as an individual? The idea of community and individual potentially are viewed as contradictions or opposites. 

A community is “a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.” while an individual is defined as “Existing as a distinct entity; separate.”

Now, the world cannot survive without some form of community, just as some idea of government is required as well. However, it cannot be pushed to a point where it overpowers the rights of the individual.

We can live together, and we may serve each other—as long as there is a choice to decline to do so—but any individual must have more power than the group of the people together.

The Anti-Federalist argument about the Constitution was the fear of a central government that was too strong. Individual state rights would be lost.

The Bill of Rights helped defend that, but the overall issue was democracy. When there is mob rule imposed in a system, there is no real representation.

As Thomas Jefferson says, “Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%.”

A representative system puts into effect representatives that can portray the ideas of the individual, but overall, no individual rights are lost.

One of the biggest concerns in the world is defending those who are the minority. However, one of the most well-known quotes by Ayn Rand says, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

In order for other people to be helped, you must first help yourself. If the rights of the individual are lost, then the rights of everyone are lost.

Community is not something that takes away from the individual, although it is often portrayed that way. 

Community is not a bad thing, just the way that it’s implemented is what is causing issues.

For example, one of the largest contributors to the loss of individual rights is the “common good”. 

This implies what is right for everyone, but there are many flaws with this idea.

To begin, which one man—or group of men—has the power and the authority to decide what will benefit society the most?

Second, it’s called the common good, not good for all. No matter how many people it benefits, there will always be at least one person that this harms. 

What would better: impose a law that benefits the majority of society while the minority—the individual—suffer horrendous results, or let people work for themselves and choose their own path?

What separates us from the animals is that we have free will. Animals rely on instinct, while we make decisions.

Animals cannot commit sins because they cannot choose. Would we really be free if we didn’t have the ability to make the wrong decision?

The problem with this is that although it does make an argument defending free will, it’s the capability of this act that people fear.

No one denies that we have free will—people have the right and the ability to make their own decisions. 

The problem is that people fear this. They fear life, they fear failure, so, inevitably, they fear free choice.

You have the decision to live your life with this belief. That’s the beauty of free will. However, free will doesn’t allow you to impose this belief upon other people, and that’s what’s beginning to happen.

Community will never be something that people can live without—as is government—but it is something that has to be given in moderation. 

Community will only overpower the individual if you allow it. The power does—and always will—lie in the individual person, the smallest minority.

— Lin

#politcal #politics #the liberty articles #individual #community #debate #ayn rand #thomas jefferson #minority #individual rights #federalists #anti-federalists

[un-citoyen]

Index

Introduction

No. 1 Selfishness

No. 2 Community vs. the Individual

No. 3 Self-Reliance

No. 4 Right to Privacy and Private Property

No. 5 Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Open Letter

#masterlist #master list #political #politics #the articles of liberty #freedom #justice #liberty #observations #a citizen #un citoyen

[un-citoyen]

No. 1 Selfishness

Is it really such a crime to be selfish? What do you define selfishness as? Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that selfishness is “having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people”.  However, it also defines selflessness as “having no concern for self”. This means that no matter the situation you have found yourself in, you must always look out for other people. In order to be truly selfless, you must take on every single problem in the world, so long as it’s not your own burden. Even if this results in the loss of your life, you must sacrifice yourself for someone else. 

Is that really selflessness? Isn’t it just human instinct to try to make it as far to the end as possible? Self-preservation is one of the earliest motivators in human history. People fight to stay alive. 

Now, obviously, selflessness can hold goodness in concept. There is nothing wrong with helping out your neighbor in a time of need. But, despite this, when you break it down to the fundamentals, selflessness can actually create a rather large paradox. If you’re truly selfless, you will give up what is not necessary for life (i.e., phone, television, extra shoes and clothes, etc.) to help out your neighbor or friend who doesn’t have these things. 

Now, why is it that it’s the right thing to do to give up your things for other people, but it’s also perfectly okay for them to accept it? These people may not have a television or phone, but that’s not required for life. It is a luxury, one that I have personally worked hard for. 

Should I be required to give that up for those who don’t possess it? Why must I give up what I have to my neighbor, but it’s just as right for them to take my possessions for nothing in return? Of course, if this was done of my own free will and I expect nothing in return, then it’s a good deed, and someone benefits from it. 

But in today’s society, selfishness is being followed by guilt and blame, while selflessness is being rewarded. It’s only selfless if you make the choice to do it. If you are forced to donate and volunteer, then what’s the point? 

People shouldn’t feel guilty when they make the choice to keep what they have. Perhaps it would be nice if everyone donated to charity, but could you call it donation if people were required to do it? 

Just like all things, selfishness can be taken too far, but so can selflessness. Those who are forced to give up some things will have everything taken from them. It’s only when it’s done of our own choice does it mean anything. 

It’s okay to be selfless, just as it is okay to be selfish, but people mustn’t be prosecuted for making their own decision. If everyone was giving to each other, then no one would have anything, and all motivation for work would be lost. 

Why should I work hard when my neighbor will just provide for me? And why should they work hard if their neighbor will provide for them? Then there’s an economic standstill, caused by the simple act of everyone providing charity for each other. But if everyone were to work for themselves and no one else, we could all prosper together and celebrate our individual success as a community.

— Lin

#politics #publius #selfishness #seflessness #selfish #selfless #no. 1 #liberty #the liberty articles #liberty articles #political

[un-citoyen]

Introduction

It’s no secret the world has changed since our Founding Fathers laid out the foundation for our country. It’s no secret that we have strayed away from their ideals, and that corruption has been filtered into our legal system.

The biggest issue is stopping this. How can we take back our country and bring back freedom for the individual? The first step is making people aware.

So much of corruption relies on ignorance. Educate people, and the system will begin to crumble. Now, at a time like this, this is incredibly hard to do, considering the number of lies being pushed through the media and our daily lives. Things have gotten so twisted that it still remains unclear as to what each political party wants and what they fight for.

However, the articles that are held within this page aren’t like other media platforms. They fight for the truth, and while every system claims that they are doing the same thing, these documents take a different approach.

These aren’t written from what other people are claiming to be “facts” and “truths”. This page hosts many articles written by many authors, all of who will remain anonymous. However, they are written on observations of the world around us, not what is being forced into our minds.

This is a small asset, too small to even be considered a step in the right direction, but hopefully, over time, it will grow to a bigger stage. 

Inspiration has obviously been taken from The Federalist Papers, and with luck, we will reach their level of publicity.

We have the power to take back our country and our freedom. 

We have the reasons to take back our country and our freedom.

We just need the motivation.

— Lin

#politics #political #introduction #freedom #liberty #justice #the liberty articles #articles #publius #founding fathers