Throughout the world each society has days they celebrate each year. These dates can be national, religious, or personal. I shall focus on the birthday. This celebration is probably celebrated even in the most remote parts of the world. It is now time to celebrate another kind of birth: the birth of a stateless person.
July 5, 1998
The day after our nation's birthday: it is the apex of our summer calendar year. It is filled with picnics, festivals, carnivals, live music, dancing, street fairs, cotton candy, dunking machines, ice cream waffle cones, and of course the night dance of fireworks across this great land. It is and will always define the American summer, especially for the young.
But I have something else in mind. The day after our nation's birthday set eighteen years ago this year will celebrate something completely American: a stateless birth.
I can understand that a blog post may seem inadequate to explain such an idea, but even in brevity the main aspects of the principle should be approachable by all.
I begin first by saying that this is not a turning away, but rather, a turning towards. It is the next step.
The criteria are quite simple. If a person has not become a naturalized citizen or is a first-generation birthed American, then they will be categorized as a stateless person.
Now, this name of a stateless person may at first put people off. The term, I assure you, has no intention of being derogatory towards the owner of the name. It is simply a status of citizenship. Nothing more.
The name does not imply coward, anarchist, criminal, saint, or anything else in political speak. It is just a status.
All people that do meet this criteria are known legally as stateless while they are in America. If they return to their country of origin they will regain citizenship from that country. Being categorized as stateless does not imply anything about their own personal traits. This category is based in legality which will in turn affect their status here in America only.
How?
1. A stateless person will not have access to any social programs offered by any city, county, state, or territory of America.
2. A stateless person will not have access to a civilian court or attorney.
3. A stateless person must register with the United States Navy.
4. A stateless person must pay an annual stateless fee of 2.5% of the Median Household Income based on the state in which they reside each year. If they reside in multiple states during a fiscal year, then the stateless person will pay the state with the highest MHI.
Example: Arizona MHI: $48,621 in 2012
48,621 X .025= 1,216 (rounded up)
The stateless person residing in Arizona must pay the US Navy $1,216 USD upon entry into America. It is not pro-rated. The fiscal year is January 1 through December 31. It does not matter when the person arrives. They will pay the same amount of $1, 216.00 USD.
If the stateless person remains in Arizona for a second year without leaving America, then the stateless fee will be due July 5 of that year. If they leave and decide to return to America, they again must pay the fee upon entry. No exceptions. If the person leaves and returns multiple times in a fiscal year they will pay the same amount for each entry.
5. The United States Navy will deposit the funds into a special account in the Federal Reserve the first year the stateless person arrives. Subsequent payments will be split 50/50 between the Federal Reserve and the state in which the stateless person resides.
6. This fee cannot be paid by a sponsor or third party. The United States Navy will trace the funds to their origin. If there is any attempt to commit fraud, then the US Navy will charge the person with treason. If found guilty, they will be held in a military prison until their execution.
7. A stateless person will operate while in America in a fee-based system. This means that if the person calls the police, fire rescue, paramedics, or any other agency, they must pay for that service. The fee scale will be set and maintained by the US Navy.
8. A stateless person cannot vote.
Now, if a person is a legacy (a person with at least two generations of family born in America) they have the stateless option as well. Upon their 18th birthday the person fills out an application for stateless status for the US Navy. This application is a declaration that surrenders their citizenship. This application has a 12 month holding period wherein the person has the ability to withdraw the application with no reciprocity. After the holding period the person must "interview" with the US Navy for American citizenship reinstatement. The fee for this reinstatement is: MHI x 5.
Example: Illinois $57, 444 in 2014
57,444 x 5=287,220
Once a person is stateless, any offspring from any relationship will be deemed stateless by birth in America. If they child is born in another country American authorities will adhere to the law of that country in regards to citizenship.
Upon their 18th birthday, any stateless children will have the right to apply for citizenship in America. The fee for this application will be: MHI x 10.
Example: South Carolina $43,916 in 2012
43,916 x 10=439,160
The dossier of a stateless person.
A. No stateless person can be arrested or detained by local or state law enforcement.
B. No stateless person shall be forced to pay any monetary fee or membership outside the stateless fee they pay to the US Navy.
C. No stateless person shall pay any personal property tax or income tax at any level of government.
D. A stateless person may serve their domain in any capacity they see fit. For example: jury duty, volunteer fire department, or military service.
The stateless person will communicate their status by carrying a US Naval ID tag. Any country currently in a trade agreement with America shall honor this US Naval ID tag when or if the stateless person travels abroad. This ID tag will replace any other currently used documentation like a passport.
It is possible I may have missed a point or two. I am sure people reading this will have questions. The people I have discussed this idea with certainly had questions. I have made every attempt to manage the answers to keep them as simple as possible.
By no means is this a cure or device directed towards immigration. This idea is not a solution to immigration, because I do not see immigration as a problem. To establish clarity for the reader: this is a solution to the modern issue of ownership by domain.
I am simply trying to solve the conundrum of: does a country own you or do you own your country? Do rights belong to a person or to a geographic location?
It is time to accept the natural evolution. It is time to acknowledge truth. It is time to evolve beyond positive and negative rights.
We have no control over what monsters darken our doorway, but we do have the ability to choose how we respond to them. Don't be afraid. This is just the next step.
Peace
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Abortion: the utility of a procedure
Legal
Ethical
Philosophical
Medical
Religious
Economical
Political
Abortion may be one of the few topics in modern history that touches all of the above categories. It is the most divisive political issue of our time. And yet, it appears to me, that even though many have opinions about abortion, there seems a void left inside, deep deep inside.
What is the utility of the abortion?
There is a innate dilemma with all innovation: intention versus application. The human has learned the hard way that once something is invented it is almost impossible to remove it.
This debate can be dealt with immediately or it can be delayed indefinitely. But what we do know is that it is always present. The innovation cannot be uninnovated. That would be unnatural, because we assume that the innovation was part of natural law. We assume that the human evolved to a point wherein existing forms just didn't work anymore. It is not a failure on any one person, but rather the proof that as creatures of cognition we can create things that are deemed necessary by a certain population, but may not be deemed necessary by the entire population. Now the game has begun.
If one assumes it is to simply get rid of the proof of intercourse, then abortion, as any reaction would be, stands as a deterrent. By that I mean, if humans thought abortions were so terrible, they would be used as a threat. But the death penalty has not stopped acts of murder or rape. Having access to a Nuclear device has not stopped war. Thusly, the stigma of abortions has not kept men and women from fornicating and feeling the need to avoid the natural consequence (parenting) of that act.
Here, we must note that abortion is not independent, but dependent of another act. Not just anyone can have an abortion. The medical procedure is gender specific and also requires certain acts to take place prior to the abortion. Firstly, a man and a woman must have intercourse. Secondly, the sperm must fertilize an egg. Thirdly, a decision by the woman or the couple must be made about the intercourse and its consequence called pregnancy. This pregnancy will result in the birth of another human being. As a creature of cognition; both the male and the female know from prior knowledge (social or family) that once a parent, always a parent. The responsibilities include: financial, emotional, physical, and mental.
Fourth, in order for the woman or couple to contemplate the abortion, they must first have access to the medical procedure. This access would be rated as easy to impossible. The woman or couple would measure the risk versus the reward. The risk would be defined as the possiblity of becoming a parent when the human does not want to be a parent. The reward would be defind as the end result of the abortion would remove the possibility of becoming a parent for that particular singular act of fornication.
Fifth, and this may be the most difficult, what was gained by the abortion? Did it set the female and male free from their own preconceived notion of the burden of parenthood? What about loss?
A. If the fetus would've gone full term, then perhaps that human would've studied oncology. And in doing so invented a treatment which would've led to a cure for cancer.
B. If the fetus goes full term, but this time the human is a cashier at a gas station. One Saturday night, over a fight in the parking lot, the cashier gets shot at the age of 23. The world still turns and it is indifferent.
C. If the fetus goes full term and the human manifests "troubles" early on. As the human ages more "troubles" take place until the human, at the age of 27, has now raped 11 different women in four states.
If sex is a singular act then we must be willing to acknowledge the multiple outcomes of that birth. Because we cannot say with any certainty about that birth, it is irrational to speak of the conception or the end the pregnancy.
No one has sex knowing what the outcome will be. A couple may be "planning" a family by monitoring her monthly cycle, but those couples never entertained the procedure called abortion. It would defeat the purpose of all the planning. One cannot have a family if they continue to abort the fetus after conception.
A libertarian, a green, a male, a female, a catholic, an atheist, and all the rest that take it to task to name a position to their own belief structure; as if the name itself warrants serious thought and consideration, justify by believing that their own belief is the proper belief. Once this is accomplished, then all further discussions of logic and reason are off. The topic, for them, is closed.
If someone wants to have sex, then they know there is a chance of a pregnancy. They also know there is a chance of a STD. A woman can be frigid in the same manner a man can be limp. Both genders can be barren or unable to procreate. But science has solved many of these problems. And these solutions have generally been accepted by the society as a whole. Of course, there are minor groups that refuse to acknowledge these solutions or have taken staunch positions to the counter. Regardless, the human seems to allow a double standard with these medical procedures. I believe it stems from the use of one word: medical.
I solve this small dilemma by saying simply that if a procedure effects the human body which alters the course of the human's life, then it is medical.
There are treatments for most STDs. There are medications for erectile and libido issues. There also remains old school devices as abstinence and condoms.
No matter how far you go with this discussion, everyone deciding here must answer the simple question: what is the utility of the abortion?
You must first engage the cause before you set values to the effects. When you say abortion is murder, you do so by offending the logical matrix meant for ontology. In that same pathology, if you believe abortion is murder, then you must also see masturbation as murder. You could also say something like: "Any sexual activity that ends with null children is deemed an unnatural act."
You could base all of your beliefs on such a statement. But does it deal with reality or an idealism. You put the human in a place they don't belong.
If a woman owns her body which includes her womb, then a man owns his sperm; but by themselves, the egg and the sperm, are just two separate entities. It is only when joined that they create something. It is the creation of the "something" that belongs to being which belongs to ontology. When a woman gets pregnant, we know that she will give birth to a human. There is no speculation about her giving birth to a toaster or a love seat or a sports car. It is a natural course of events which can be interrupted by the procedure which makes that outcome disappear.
So what does it say about a society that would invent a procedure that seems so condemned and yet utilized every year? What does it say about American's humanity?
Your passions and your reason cannot maneuver around this unless you are purposely avoiding the task of answering the question.
Abortion is nothing but a medical procedure which cannot be uninvented. No one has used atomic weapons since WW2 but we know they still exist as well as the act of violence known as war.
Abortion is to deal with the consequences of an act. When you make it more than this you insult the intellect of everyone else. You use emotivism because it makes you feel good or important as if your post will end the discussion in a virtual eureka.
Abortion is a topic born never to be answered collectively. Roe versus Wade has not addressed any of the categories listed at the top of this post beyond that of legal.
Being is a topic that will never be solved as it is not a problem. It belongs to a realm that is both timeless and without reference. It belongs to philosophy and there it has a place and a home. It is to be discussed by everyone generation that follows, but it can never be answered completely without severe consequence to us all.
The reason abortion is so divisive is due to the fact that it is marketed as a solution to a problem: abortion is murder.
But the pregnancy is not a problem. The conception is not a problem. The end of a pregnancy is not a problem. We manufacture a problem as to implement the solution.
A woman can suffer a miscarriage. Is that grounds for a manslaughter charge? What if we have proof she consumed alcohol? What if we know she smoked cigarettes until her last tri-mester? Would you have grounds for child abuse or assault?
You can promote adoption but you can't make it fool proof. There are thousands of case studies in MSW programs to prove that pedophiles got into foster care programs in America. There are also cases wherein a couple took in children for the monthly check. Are these circumstances grounds for saying you are pro-birth rather than pro-life?
You can force a woman to give birth, but you can't force her to be a parent. You can't force the male to be part of the child's life. You argue rights as if natural law has something to do with creation.
The medical procedure of abortion is a test of everyone's metaphysical aptitude. In the end, I have found it to be about control...from both sides of the argument.
My final thought revolves around the psychological term cognition. The fetus simply has no means of currently communiticating its own wants and desires. The outsider has made that decision for them as if they were already a human child and you were acting as a parent or guardian. But the fetus is not a human child with cognition. This again belongs to ontology as it deals with eventuality. If the fetus goes full term, eventually a human child will be born. And as a child cannot make adult decisions legally in America, we find ourselves once again going back to the female and male fornicators. They shared one thing they both own, and now face an eventual outcome that is not in question.
What is the utility of abortion?
Let each decide that for themselves. Let each find peace in their minds and their hearts.
No force necessary.
Ethical
Philosophical
Medical
Religious
Economical
Political
Abortion may be one of the few topics in modern history that touches all of the above categories. It is the most divisive political issue of our time. And yet, it appears to me, that even though many have opinions about abortion, there seems a void left inside, deep deep inside.
What is the utility of the abortion?
There is a innate dilemma with all innovation: intention versus application. The human has learned the hard way that once something is invented it is almost impossible to remove it.
This debate can be dealt with immediately or it can be delayed indefinitely. But what we do know is that it is always present. The innovation cannot be uninnovated. That would be unnatural, because we assume that the innovation was part of natural law. We assume that the human evolved to a point wherein existing forms just didn't work anymore. It is not a failure on any one person, but rather the proof that as creatures of cognition we can create things that are deemed necessary by a certain population, but may not be deemed necessary by the entire population. Now the game has begun.
If one assumes it is to simply get rid of the proof of intercourse, then abortion, as any reaction would be, stands as a deterrent. By that I mean, if humans thought abortions were so terrible, they would be used as a threat. But the death penalty has not stopped acts of murder or rape. Having access to a Nuclear device has not stopped war. Thusly, the stigma of abortions has not kept men and women from fornicating and feeling the need to avoid the natural consequence (parenting) of that act.
Here, we must note that abortion is not independent, but dependent of another act. Not just anyone can have an abortion. The medical procedure is gender specific and also requires certain acts to take place prior to the abortion. Firstly, a man and a woman must have intercourse. Secondly, the sperm must fertilize an egg. Thirdly, a decision by the woman or the couple must be made about the intercourse and its consequence called pregnancy. This pregnancy will result in the birth of another human being. As a creature of cognition; both the male and the female know from prior knowledge (social or family) that once a parent, always a parent. The responsibilities include: financial, emotional, physical, and mental.
Fourth, in order for the woman or couple to contemplate the abortion, they must first have access to the medical procedure. This access would be rated as easy to impossible. The woman or couple would measure the risk versus the reward. The risk would be defined as the possiblity of becoming a parent when the human does not want to be a parent. The reward would be defind as the end result of the abortion would remove the possibility of becoming a parent for that particular singular act of fornication.
Fifth, and this may be the most difficult, what was gained by the abortion? Did it set the female and male free from their own preconceived notion of the burden of parenthood? What about loss?
A. If the fetus would've gone full term, then perhaps that human would've studied oncology. And in doing so invented a treatment which would've led to a cure for cancer.
B. If the fetus goes full term, but this time the human is a cashier at a gas station. One Saturday night, over a fight in the parking lot, the cashier gets shot at the age of 23. The world still turns and it is indifferent.
C. If the fetus goes full term and the human manifests "troubles" early on. As the human ages more "troubles" take place until the human, at the age of 27, has now raped 11 different women in four states.
If sex is a singular act then we must be willing to acknowledge the multiple outcomes of that birth. Because we cannot say with any certainty about that birth, it is irrational to speak of the conception or the end the pregnancy.
No one has sex knowing what the outcome will be. A couple may be "planning" a family by monitoring her monthly cycle, but those couples never entertained the procedure called abortion. It would defeat the purpose of all the planning. One cannot have a family if they continue to abort the fetus after conception.
A libertarian, a green, a male, a female, a catholic, an atheist, and all the rest that take it to task to name a position to their own belief structure; as if the name itself warrants serious thought and consideration, justify by believing that their own belief is the proper belief. Once this is accomplished, then all further discussions of logic and reason are off. The topic, for them, is closed.
If someone wants to have sex, then they know there is a chance of a pregnancy. They also know there is a chance of a STD. A woman can be frigid in the same manner a man can be limp. Both genders can be barren or unable to procreate. But science has solved many of these problems. And these solutions have generally been accepted by the society as a whole. Of course, there are minor groups that refuse to acknowledge these solutions or have taken staunch positions to the counter. Regardless, the human seems to allow a double standard with these medical procedures. I believe it stems from the use of one word: medical.
I solve this small dilemma by saying simply that if a procedure effects the human body which alters the course of the human's life, then it is medical.
There are treatments for most STDs. There are medications for erectile and libido issues. There also remains old school devices as abstinence and condoms.
No matter how far you go with this discussion, everyone deciding here must answer the simple question: what is the utility of the abortion?
You must first engage the cause before you set values to the effects. When you say abortion is murder, you do so by offending the logical matrix meant for ontology. In that same pathology, if you believe abortion is murder, then you must also see masturbation as murder. You could also say something like: "Any sexual activity that ends with null children is deemed an unnatural act."
You could base all of your beliefs on such a statement. But does it deal with reality or an idealism. You put the human in a place they don't belong.
If a woman owns her body which includes her womb, then a man owns his sperm; but by themselves, the egg and the sperm, are just two separate entities. It is only when joined that they create something. It is the creation of the "something" that belongs to being which belongs to ontology. When a woman gets pregnant, we know that she will give birth to a human. There is no speculation about her giving birth to a toaster or a love seat or a sports car. It is a natural course of events which can be interrupted by the procedure which makes that outcome disappear.
So what does it say about a society that would invent a procedure that seems so condemned and yet utilized every year? What does it say about American's humanity?
Your passions and your reason cannot maneuver around this unless you are purposely avoiding the task of answering the question.
Abortion is nothing but a medical procedure which cannot be uninvented. No one has used atomic weapons since WW2 but we know they still exist as well as the act of violence known as war.
Abortion is to deal with the consequences of an act. When you make it more than this you insult the intellect of everyone else. You use emotivism because it makes you feel good or important as if your post will end the discussion in a virtual eureka.
Abortion is a topic born never to be answered collectively. Roe versus Wade has not addressed any of the categories listed at the top of this post beyond that of legal.
Being is a topic that will never be solved as it is not a problem. It belongs to a realm that is both timeless and without reference. It belongs to philosophy and there it has a place and a home. It is to be discussed by everyone generation that follows, but it can never be answered completely without severe consequence to us all.
The reason abortion is so divisive is due to the fact that it is marketed as a solution to a problem: abortion is murder.
But the pregnancy is not a problem. The conception is not a problem. The end of a pregnancy is not a problem. We manufacture a problem as to implement the solution.
A woman can suffer a miscarriage. Is that grounds for a manslaughter charge? What if we have proof she consumed alcohol? What if we know she smoked cigarettes until her last tri-mester? Would you have grounds for child abuse or assault?
You can promote adoption but you can't make it fool proof. There are thousands of case studies in MSW programs to prove that pedophiles got into foster care programs in America. There are also cases wherein a couple took in children for the monthly check. Are these circumstances grounds for saying you are pro-birth rather than pro-life?
You can force a woman to give birth, but you can't force her to be a parent. You can't force the male to be part of the child's life. You argue rights as if natural law has something to do with creation.
The medical procedure of abortion is a test of everyone's metaphysical aptitude. In the end, I have found it to be about control...from both sides of the argument.
My final thought revolves around the psychological term cognition. The fetus simply has no means of currently communiticating its own wants and desires. The outsider has made that decision for them as if they were already a human child and you were acting as a parent or guardian. But the fetus is not a human child with cognition. This again belongs to ontology as it deals with eventuality. If the fetus goes full term, eventually a human child will be born. And as a child cannot make adult decisions legally in America, we find ourselves once again going back to the female and male fornicators. They shared one thing they both own, and now face an eventual outcome that is not in question.
What is the utility of abortion?
Let each decide that for themselves. Let each find peace in their minds and their hearts.
No force necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)