The opening sentence of Chapter Two states, “Most people are decent.” If I were to write this today, I think I would have omitted that line. I was attempting to be gracious, and generous with humanity in 2007. This is 2014, and we have had over ten years of war in Afghanistan, a faltering pullout from Iraq, the entire Occupy Wall Street experience, and more recently the Ferguson, MO.
On a number of occasions, in Chicago, there were thousands on the street protest. The rulers ignored the protest. The media denounced, and degraded the protesters.The police unlawfully arrested the protesters (the courts repeatedly threw out charges). In Chicago, the police unlawfully infiltrated, harassed, and set up the protesters on dubious charges. When that did not work the police, with the aid of Homeland Security, beat, gassed, and attempted to murder the protesters. In the end, fatigue and infighting brought down a successful protest movement.
This chapter was written to be as widely inclusive as possible. Over the course of the years I have been told that people do not understand what it is talking about. To be succinct, a social contract which is based on any religious philosophy whatsoever is utterly dysfunctional. Such a social contract fails to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…(USA Constitution).”
Most people have bought the lies of the government as presented by the corporate media. I am not sure I would label that as “decent” anymore. It would be far more accurate to say that “most people are self centered.” This chapter begins to explain why.
Cliff Potts
September 13, 2014
Rules of Life
Most people are decent. They want to live their lives
within the acceptable norms of the sub-culture in which they were born. They
want to assume that the political leadership, while questionable in competence,
will not adversely affect them if they keep a low profile. These people do not
think of doing things outside their cultural norm. They want well defined rules
which describe good behavior within culturally acceptable norms (even “bad”
behavior is defined within the “box” of the social contract).
within the acceptable norms of the sub-culture in which they were born. They
want to assume that the political leadership, while questionable in competence,
will not adversely affect them if they keep a low profile. These people do not
think of doing things outside their cultural norm. They want well defined rules
which describe good behavior within culturally acceptable norms (even “bad”
behavior is defined within the “box” of the social contract).
The social contract which “comes up for review” every
four generations or so, is the unwritten, commonly understood agreement by
which we govern our lives to an acceptable level of success within the
civilized community. It is the collection of social rules by which we live in a
given culture. Some attribute these rules to an invisible Supreme Being, God,
or Intelligent Designer who looks over the affairs of humanity.
four generations or so, is the unwritten, commonly understood agreement by
which we govern our lives to an acceptable level of success within the
civilized community. It is the collection of social rules by which we live in a
given culture. Some attribute these rules to an invisible Supreme Being, God,
or Intelligent Designer who looks over the affairs of humanity.
The Rules of Life, however, when viewed through the
lenses of human anthropology, history, and sociology, are whatever a given
group of people have decided the rules will be. They are made by convention and
by the consent of the people, from a given social authority, with the assurance
that the rules work to the benefit of the majority of the people as defined by
the “ruling class.”
lenses of human anthropology, history, and sociology, are whatever a given
group of people have decided the rules will be. They are made by convention and
by the consent of the people, from a given social authority, with the assurance
that the rules work to the benefit of the majority of the people as defined by
the “ruling class.”
Sometimes the rules protect the minority within the
population. Sometimes they don’t. Sometimes the rules protect the interest of
the top portion of a given society at the expense of all others, and are
enforced through barbarous, oppressive, tyrannical means. Those within a given
culture always consider the rules “good” because they are the rules of the
culture and the culture does not question what is “good.”
population. Sometimes they don’t. Sometimes the rules protect the interest of
the top portion of a given society at the expense of all others, and are
enforced through barbarous, oppressive, tyrannical means. Those within a given
culture always consider the rules “good” because they are the rules of the
culture and the culture does not question what is “good.”
When the rules of life protect the interest of the
minority within a given population, even going so far as protecting the
minority from the majority, and protecting them from the potential abuses of
the “ruling class” then the society is deemed civilized. When the minority, as
defined by race, creed, philosophy, economic status, ability or disability is
not protected, then the society is deemed primitive (tribal) and oppressive. In
either case it is not unheard of to draw inspiration for the rules of life from
the classic texts from human history. However, this does not make these rules into
natural law, or the decree of the gods, or God. These rules are what people
collectively decide they shall be based on their understanding of their
culture.
minority within a given population, even going so far as protecting the
minority from the majority, and protecting them from the potential abuses of
the “ruling class” then the society is deemed civilized. When the minority, as
defined by race, creed, philosophy, economic status, ability or disability is
not protected, then the society is deemed primitive (tribal) and oppressive. In
either case it is not unheard of to draw inspiration for the rules of life from
the classic texts from human history. However, this does not make these rules into
natural law, or the decree of the gods, or God. These rules are what people
collectively decide they shall be based on their understanding of their
culture.
Even tyrants enjoy a certain prosperous longevity
when they acutely observe the rules of life as understood within a given
culture. This longevity is often secured through the acquisition of sufficient
resources that allow for isolation from the effects of their tyranny upon the
general population. So long as the population as a whole accepts the rules of
life as being unalterable, universal, and relatively constant the rules of life
are unalterable. For better or worse, they become the expression of God within
a given culture at a given time.
when they acutely observe the rules of life as understood within a given
culture. This longevity is often secured through the acquisition of sufficient
resources that allow for isolation from the effects of their tyranny upon the
general population. So long as the population as a whole accepts the rules of
life as being unalterable, universal, and relatively constant the rules of life
are unalterable. For better or worse, they become the expression of God within
a given culture at a given time.
In the United States of America in the
early 21st Century there is a serious drawback to utilizing a
literal view of ancient writings to define social norms. This is especially
true in the realm of economics.
early 21st Century there is a serious drawback to utilizing a
literal view of ancient writings to define social norms. This is especially
true in the realm of economics.
It is sufficient to point out that we are no longer a
agrarian (farm) based economy. There are no guarantees that each family will
have the means to produce a subsistence level livelihood, and there are no
guarantees that, in the case of mismanagement, the specified plot of land will
be returned to the family descendents after a specific period of time. If such
rules are the rules of God then the United States economic system in
the current era (and for the better part of its history) is operating far
outside the agreed-upon rules. Over the thousands of years since the historic writings
were codified (in whatever tradition one chooses to look) the economic promise
of the means of producing minimal life sustaining resources has vanished from the
social contract.
agrarian (farm) based economy. There are no guarantees that each family will
have the means to produce a subsistence level livelihood, and there are no
guarantees that, in the case of mismanagement, the specified plot of land will
be returned to the family descendents after a specific period of time. If such
rules are the rules of God then the United States economic system in
the current era (and for the better part of its history) is operating far
outside the agreed-upon rules. Over the thousands of years since the historic writings
were codified (in whatever tradition one chooses to look) the economic promise
of the means of producing minimal life sustaining resources has vanished from the
social contract.
Especially in the advanced Western cultures, people
are landless. What little they do have is usually in some form of lifetime
lease to some lending institution. Furthermore, this small plot of land is not
capable of producing even the minimal resources to qualify as subsistence livelihood.
In today’s environment most individuals lack the means of self-sustainability.
The United States
left the farm behind long ago. Farming, like so many other economic venues, is
now in the hands of a few corporations and the general population is locked out
of the benefits of the homestead.
are landless. What little they do have is usually in some form of lifetime
lease to some lending institution. Furthermore, this small plot of land is not
capable of producing even the minimal resources to qualify as subsistence livelihood.
In today’s environment most individuals lack the means of self-sustainability.
The United States
left the farm behind long ago. Farming, like so many other economic venues, is
now in the hands of a few corporations and the general population is locked out
of the benefits of the homestead.
Even in rural America,
relative prosperity, above subsistence living in the U.S., is still dependant trading
services for livelihood, often augmented by some form of government subsidy (a
form of entitlement and welfare paid to the land owner/operator). Not
withstanding the rhetoric of the current theosophical adherents, the vast
majority of independent farmers do not survive in this current environment as a
self-supporting, self-sustaining island of
economic independence. However, as the late James Michener (1907-1997)
pointed out in Centennial (1974), it is tantamount to political suicide for any
politician to point this truth out; the cultural mythos in the United States
is one of rugged individualism.
relative prosperity, above subsistence living in the U.S., is still dependant trading
services for livelihood, often augmented by some form of government subsidy (a
form of entitlement and welfare paid to the land owner/operator). Not
withstanding the rhetoric of the current theosophical adherents, the vast
majority of independent farmers do not survive in this current environment as a
self-supporting, self-sustaining island of
economic independence. However, as the late James Michener (1907-1997)
pointed out in Centennial (1974), it is tantamount to political suicide for any
politician to point this truth out; the cultural mythos in the United States
is one of rugged individualism.
Mythos not withstanding, the interconnection of
humanity is a fact for the majority of the people in the United States. Therefore,
for the majority of the population the Rules of Life, the socioeconomic rules
which guarantee relative prosperity and protection against the effects of
unforeseen circumstances, need to reflect the reality of the current world.
humanity is a fact for the majority of the people in the United States. Therefore,
for the majority of the population the Rules of Life, the socioeconomic rules
which guarantee relative prosperity and protection against the effects of
unforeseen circumstances, need to reflect the reality of the current world.
We need to establish in the United States
solid guidelines which reflect the current socioeconomic reality of the 21st
Century. This is not to be done through force of law, but by the alterations of
perception of the workings of the economic engine as defined within the social
contract. The rules of life based on an agrarian feudalism of the 16th
and 17th centuries in commentaries from these times do not function
well in a world run by mammoth corporations. There is no “invisible hand of the
market” as Adam Smith put it, and no God’s will, as the Apostle Paul declared,
in today’s economy. It is all the construct of human invention and invention
evolved over time codified within the popular media to form the conventional
wisdom of the social contract.
solid guidelines which reflect the current socioeconomic reality of the 21st
Century. This is not to be done through force of law, but by the alterations of
perception of the workings of the economic engine as defined within the social
contract. The rules of life based on an agrarian feudalism of the 16th
and 17th centuries in commentaries from these times do not function
well in a world run by mammoth corporations. There is no “invisible hand of the
market” as Adam Smith put it, and no God’s will, as the Apostle Paul declared,
in today’s economy. It is all the construct of human invention and invention
evolved over time codified within the popular media to form the conventional
wisdom of the social contract.
Discover more from WPS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WPS News 