Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
U.S. colleges and trade schools
Odd combination of directories you think? See 'faces'
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(2nd edition - January 2009) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
The battle for egalitarianism, a term which encompasses both 'human rights' and 'equal rights', has been a continuing struggle for thousands of years. By whatever term one might want to call these inalienable rights however, which could be considered under the umbrella of humanitarianism, it's all about justice. Every government, whatever its political ideology, claims to represent justice but in the end... few, if any, actually have. Tokenism is to be their legacy. Only the citizenry, it seems, have remained loyal to the ideal of justice. Yet, drawn from the pool of citizens is government... evidence the corruptible nature of institutions.
While battles over rights are being waged on several fronts, at first glance seemingly a sign of disorganization, or simply inefficiency, it's actually a better circumstance. An offense carried out by different groups will prove more effective because a single unit becomes, in effect, an institution. And institutions, like a country, while productive initially to serve a purpose, always fail in the end because they soon begin to serve themselves instead. Even cooperatives have been known to turn on their members.
Although gains have been meager and the setbacks many, current events are shedding a promising new light on a way to combat the continual abuse of rights... perhaps to eliminate the problem forever. It's creative and a chance-of-a-lifetime.
But first, let's begin by addressing the curiosities of this war and ongoing battles. Due to the fog of war, they're often overlooked and not taken into account. Over the head of pundits complexities fly.
In calling it a 'war', let's continue to characterize it as such and use terms such as 'enemy' which has a way of emphasizing the seriousness. Let's also refer to the overall movement for egalitarianism as an 'insurgency', however lawful and civilly obedient each organization may be. Well, we're not really 'insurgents', most Americans don't see the need for that, not yet anyway. As to our stated 'enemies', they're not really, with few exceptions they're merely the loyal opposition (albeit misguided) and in other circumstances, our friends. Comparisons help put things in perspective.
Although the meager advancements within America are many, in most instances the devil thrown off-stage, but since he isn't planning on leaving the scene, not ever, he's left to hide in the details.
While a multi-front war has its advantages, as guerrilla warfare has shown, oftentimes too many individual battles going on simultaneously can obscure the overall picture, where things stand. After all, it involves battles over political accountability, gun ownership, personal drug use, property rights, corporate slave-wages, prostitution, discrimination, prison conditions, abortion rights, death penalty, a living wage, family farmers, the homeless and more.
Obscuring the overall picture isn't the worst of the downsides however. While this war is effectively being fought on dozens of fronts, for ages the only real alternative, and while failure can be attributed to a variety of circumstances, in-fighting is often the reason for the lack of success. Invariably, 'cross-purposes' is the culprit. Also, in conventional warfare one's enemies are generally known and identifiable, but that's not necessarily true in this war. It often involves fellow citizens with differing views which, if exercised, would be considered intrusive by others.
While the most discernable enemy is usually one's own government, administrations (attitudes) can change and sympathetic allies are usually found within. Despite their dismal records, government is still where the greatest amount of hope is placed.
While the greatest gain in modern times has been that most abuses were driven underground, in general no longer overtly exercised, a universal and everlasting sign of their wrongfulness, it didn't spell their demise. The modus operandi of encroachment simply evolved. Abuses are now more 'creatively complex' designed to escape attention. After all, complexity is not compatible with media sound-bites... nor are vast number of individual cases involving the average Joe. More-so today abuses hide in regulations, less-so in laws.
Special interests groups could also be the enemy if their interests run counter to someone else's rights movement. Human rights movements are often at odds with each other and can be, in effect, each other's worst enemy. To wit, some human rights groups consider transnational corporations the enemy as they continually stiff American workers in favor of paying slave-wages overseas but it is often environmentalists, a 'rights group' themselves, who often drive these companies overseas. While brothers-in-arms in one respect, they are traitors in another.
The situation is fluid... as time renders these individual forces either stronger or weaker.
In short, we're in a war in which, like Vietnam, has no contiguous frontline or discernable enemy often. It's more like guerrilla warfare. And while those of us advocating egalitarianism may seem unorganized, if not disorganized, so too are our enemies. While some are better suited to fight a war, largely because they have the distinct advantage of money, political power or backed by a standing army and police force, but, much like us, they are not a single unified force either... often having personal gain on their minds and further disunited because of 'turf wars'.
Let's describe it even further... egalitarianism is in a war facing dozens of enemies from nearly every quarter of government including special-interest groups which have caused, or are trying to cause, the creation of unjust laws and regulations... such as the anti-abortionists and anti-gun lobbyists. These days, if groups are 'anti' anything, it's usually at the expense of liberties.
Environmentalists are guilty in another manner by utilizing 'junk science' as they did in their war against DDT affecting farmers (since 1972) and more recently, for a variety of insane contentions (based on 'junk science'), have negatively affected the livelihood of ranchers. Of course, that's assuming a livelihood is a 'right'... and it would be if it isn't at the expense of another's rights. In this case, farming and ranching are 'natural' undertakings and indispensable. Those undertakings can't be made impossible as is the growing case.
Most of these opposing forces are well-entrenched establishments and some have aligned themselves with (or have created) think-tanks dedicated to mold the world into their own image. The strategy of governments, and sometimes special interests, is to conduct this as a covert war however, behind the scenes. The logic being... if they deny the war exists, they can't be called upon to defend their positions publicly. On the other hand, freedom fighters for egalitarianism, have, as an ethical matter, publicly aligned themselves with their favorite causes.
Disorganized or not, we've been holding our own in places but overall have gained little ground... and certainly nothing notable of late. The Miranda ruling was notable but that was 43 years ago (1966). However, if to consider that in the past 50 years shotgun rule has made a mockery of the rule of law, then we've lost ground... a lot.
While the rule of law still applies to most civil matters, it has become a stranger to law enforcement. Our bulging prison population is testimony (up from 200,000 in the early 70s to 2,000,000 today).
Since the enemy (governance in this case) is fighting this as a covert war, and therefore cannot employ offensive tactics overtly, they aren't gaining much ground either, except for the federal mandate that prohibited judges from using their judgment (sentencing guidelines)... relegating them to mere clerks. This enemy remains content to rely on defensive tactics however, believing this is a war of attrition and that the will of the insurgency can be broken. Offensive nibbling, of course, occurs. In their heavily fortified positions, surrounded by a standing army and police force, it seems they have little to fear from us name-calling and tomato-throwing insurgents.
For many, the situation might look worse if to factor globalization into this analysis, being a powerful force gathering on the horizon, of 'enemy design' largely... but, first glances often overlook the silver lining.
While the consequences of any battle are usually soon evident, the outcomes of some could play a roll in the success or failure of future battles. After all, any war strategist would say it usually takes a particular victory in order to win other battles. In this war, a landmark case or case law often sets the 'judicial tone'. Except... carrying out an orderly sequence of victories is easier said than done. Which are more important? Is there a golden trendsetter? Those in charge of overseeing each particular battle will, of course, claim theirs the most necessary... and plow ahead. Yet, they cannot fight an effective battle without such an aggressive attitude. Still, every battle must be won before victory can be declared, even if the same battles are fought over again as often the case.
For good reasons, the ongoing battle against globalization is seemingly pivotal. In the opinion of some it is sure to have a 'diluting' effect which will eventually render all men 'average'. Or, more horrid, it will be a death sentence for idealism. Perhaps for most people however, globalization is simply considered a ominous threat to liberties and therefore a legitimate concern. Whatever the case, if this war is lost then all other battlefields would be overwhelmed by this mightier enemy... seemingly. While this particular battle is one in which ground is being lost daily, and gaining momentum, the tide is heavily in favor of the enemy... or so it would seem. In fact, this battle is so big it could qualify as a war by itself and seldom on this front are yards gained back. It's not so much 'see-saw' as often the case on the other battlefields.
While the prospects for the insurgency in this battle look hopeless, surely to lose... it's not fated. As if a gift from providence, it's within our ability to dictate the terms of our surrender entirely. It would amount to a victory. After all, globalization doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, properly structured it could be a very good thing. It could eliminate most, if not all, regional injustices throughout the world. Those cultures lacking in idealism could learn a thing or two from those more 'endowed'. By example, the 'diluting effect' can be diluted itself.
While the insurgency still has enough ground left, well-positioned to dictate, but as these battles rage on, more ground will be lost... so terms must be obtained before it's too late. Perhaps some American-style values can be retained, maybe many can, it depends upon the success of activists as they battle each link in the chain of command. There's also the need to throw out of office the shotgun regulators.
Rather than let fate run it's course, we should be thinking instead about how we could help shape this one-world government... keeping in mind that whatever laws and regulations are in existence as globalization solidifies, that's probably what the one-world government will look like. Yet, as an addition gift, providence also gave mankind enough time... if he moves fast. The necessary understandings and definitions, after all, might otherwise take centuries.
Thankfully, as merely a fetus today, there isn't yet a fully developed one-world government... a single world authority must precede it and that hasn't quite happened. The most probable scenario is that a 'de facto' one-world government would rule for several centuries before anything is declared 'official'... although it seems the Bush administration had already laid claim, assuredly the reason why he 'unsigned' America's treaty with the International Criminal Court (ICC). After all, jurisdiction equates to 'control'. Whatever Obama may do is uncertain.
Even though America is well-positioned today, along with the power to exert authority, full control takes time to develop. Since it wouldn't be natural for a government to voluntarily cede a powerful position, we can expect all sorts of jockeying. If it wasn't America though, it would be another... it's human nature to try ruling. Since there is, and will be, ideological and religious opposition to the concept of a one-world government, likely powerful, an 'official' one-world government may not occur for another 200-300 years. Religious fanaticism, of course, holding out the longest.
Even under ideal circumstances, it's doubtful an 'official' one-world government is possible before the year 2100. One necessary step we haven't seen yet is a single currency... and probably won't for 3-4 decades. Although the Euro signals the trend towards monetary unification, its strength may delay that timeline. Strong currencies have a way of wanting to linger.
Since fighting the inevitable is futile, as much as trying push a chain, it only makes sense to put ourselves in position to shape this one-world government. There is only one way and nothing less will work... we must have in hand an ideal constitution to be applicable which cannot be denied. To begin the process, any number of drafts could be created in the spirit of being in competition with each other. The various drafts would need to be circulated around the globe continually for input and refinements while keeping everyone up-to-date, always on the same page. The idea would have an incredible amount of appeal but the entire population of the world, every class, would need to be involved. Otherwise... forget it.
There shouldn't be open resistance to it initially by any government, seen only as an instrument applicable to some 'improbable' government in the distant future. However that would change as the time draws near as surely many ideologies and special interests will be threatened. Caution must also be taken this document doesn't embarrass governments or create a premature stir. Once becoming an acceptable document to the populous worldwide for such an occasion, and known about for several generations, no governing bodies on earth, even collectively, could safely inject anything different. Much can be drawn from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (external link).
Still, we may have to contend with a de facto one-world government for some time which would string things out. In effect, ongoing confrontations and court battles.
While human rights is the most important issue, it's overshadowed by globalization only because globalization will dictate the future course of human rights. In order to trump the possible negative effects, an ideal constitution is not only a powerful playing card, it's a royal-flush.
There are many groups involved in egalitarianism and it can probably be said that their progress, or lack of, is largely dependent on which country these groups are fighting. It's not easy anywhere though, in equating liberties as a threat to their control, all governments are 'ferociously stubborn'. In the meantime, there is a solution... the mere existence of a perfect constitution would positively affect almost all rights movements.
While the terms commonly used to legitimize human rights have been 'natural', 'fundamental', 'inalienable' or those 'self-evident', but because these terms are subject to interpretation perhaps some type of 'spiritual evidence' is needed to strengthen these claims. God-given rights shouldn't be a matter for negotiators.
Perhaps however, 'spiritual guidance' is the best we can hope for. One thing certain, the final draft must mirror the 'natural order' otherwise it will never work. In many ways, government policies have usurped the natural order... ignoring the fact it is critical to insuring the survival of our species.
Whatever the 'natural order' may be, it certainly isn't about a meddling big brother... not even one with 'good intentions'. Besides, cradle-to-the-grave oversight is a recipe for financial disaster.
When one addresses human rights today, it's more about which are being denied (individually) rather than what the entire makeup of human rights should be... therefore a fog surrounds the matter worldwide. Uncertainties exist as to what 'should be' overall and their ideal (but reasonable) limits. In the interim, proposed lists of these 'inalienable' rights should be as visible as 'wanted posters' in a post office.
In other words, by addressing issues only when they arise is the same as if confronting a landlord about a leak without providing a list of all else wrong with the house. In the landlords opinion, all else is seemingly not important. It's also the same as if charging a criminal with just one crime even though he committed several.
Although government is a collective enterprise, comprised of all branches of government, 'government' itself is ultimately the guilty party be it by denying these rights through legislation, regulations or by simply ignoring protective laws which might exist. After all, under the protection of sovereign immunity government agents are rarely held accountable. Usually though, the devil is in the details. These 'details', otherwise not to grab the attention of the populous as a whole, thus ignored by the press, is where much of the abuse lies.
As an example, the states and private sector (such as banks) denying benefits to part-time workers. As a result, part-time workers often out-number full time employees. Swindling insurance companies is yet another example of deviousness sanctioned by the states. Con-artists should not be given a legal platform from which to conduct business.
While perhaps it is questionable whether ground has been gained overall in respect to egalitarianism, there lies hope under full-fledged globalization and it's within our ability to dictate terms. However, as said, it must be done decades before globalization has solidified. Until then, retaining or reclaiming civil liberties will require a continuing vigilant effort. Otherwise, we could lose gun-ownership rights, the freedom of the press and the right to march in protest. Of course, that's assuming water cannons and rubber bullets are not infringements. These are absolutely necessary otherwise we most certainly would lose every right. The maximum amount of pressure therefore must be maintained as successes will greatly determine the amount of trouble a 'perfect' constitution will face when the time comes.
Yet some might argue that such a strategy would only work initially, that once a one-world government has a foothold, things can easily change for the worse, after all, who could then stop it? Without a constitution with powerful teeth... nobody... civilization would be doomed.
This is why we need ironclad safe-guards, crystal clear. Continually, as we've seen, unconstitutional legislation is put forth... a treasonous act if ever there was one. If such a bill passes, it takes years before the Supreme Court will listen to challenges... in the meantime making America an unconstitutional enterprise. Also, from the lack of clarity legal battles only continue. For civilization as a whole, setbacks and confrontations can be avoided with a 'perfect' international constitution. It would be fitting if well-known humanitarian organizations (not 'institutions') began the process. It would give it credibility. In considering a one-world government will be effectively eternal, it's the last opportunity to correct the inadequacies of constitutions past.
A 'pending constitution', one which the world agreed was the most perfect possible, to be applicable to a one-world government sometime in the future, even before it went into effect would have an incredible impact... one nearly impossible to imagine. This single document, if known to exist by everyone, in which practically everyone was involved, would do more for justice than all the efforts combined since the dawn of civilization. Idealistic? Well, the founders of the American constitution and those of the Enlightenment weren't intimidated by idealism.
However, preceding the matter of defining rights and latitudes, the challenge for idealism is to first find the balance between 'natural' and 'justice'. It may take 50-100 years.
While the individual battles over such things as gun-ownership, drugs of choice, property rights, prison conditions, a living wage and the death penalty are more discernable, the fog of war less dense, but whether issues, rights or moral obligations, the associated insurgencies have only their special interests at heart. Someone concerned about gun-ownership probably doesn't care whether the guy fighting for better prison conditions wins or not. Merchants fighting for property rights are definitely not aligned with those who fight for a living wage. And those fighting for the legalization of drugs would have their share of enemies as well. If only cooperation was possible, one might think, these groups could then actively support and assist each other... except for the fact their membership would likely have differing views. For example, as to the death penalty, the National Rifle Association would have members on both sides of that issue.
Actually there is no organization at all... each fighting their own battle and with each other fighting. Due to this, at least half of these movements will be defeated, going down one-by-one. Not all will lose however, some defeats are actually victories for others. It depends on which side you're on... although nobody is against property rights except governments and the environmentalists. The strongest sector, those defending the right to bear arms, might be able to hold their territory because they're well organized, have enough money, and are, of course, well-armed. However, the outlook for some positions appear dismal because they have to be on the offensive, they don't have much left to defend. Victimless 'crimes' were decided upon decades ago and the idea chiseled in stone by the invaders. In other words, in this war it's easier to defend than to conquer, especially old ground long lost.
Rights and limitations within this constitution should be clear to everyone, including governments. As it is, rights issues are often vague or non-descript. Further, the exact role of government should be spelled out, it's limitations. A new constitution doesn't necessarily need to be crafted after the older models either... its design could, and should, be more ingenious and 'dynamically clear'.
Although there are countless ways in which underhanded acts can exist, both public and private, unethical corporate practices (overseas slave-wages) and 'unequal taxation' quickly come to mind. Overtaxing tobacco is especially unjust since the real reason (revenue) isn't the stated reason (health). The blatant and unrepentant misuse of these funds is a troubling sign the devil is back on center stage... typically to mock, 'moon' and make a fool of the audience.
While environmentalists fight many the same enemies in trying to preserve the right of future generations to an unspoiled environment, they also go the furthest in subverting the rights of others to serve their agendas. While they should be commended for some of their accomplishments except all too often they employ underhanded tactics... and by operating anonymously is an admission of guilt. By name, the media won't identify them. Because environmentalists cannot control their insatiable and usually unreasonable appetite, they are the enemy as much as government... at least in America.
It's been American workers, not the industries, who are paying the price for the unequal environmental standards worldwide. Unless it's stupidity, only money could make legislators stand idly by and watch companies being driven overseas. Prior to enacting these environmental laws, in order to try keeping these companies from leaving I've seen no evidence Washington does anything. No alternatives, no incentives, no deterrents (such as eliminating 'tax breaks') nor has Congress imposed 'like compliance' on imports.
Then you have the busybody 'do-gooders' who want a law against everything... the gravest threat of all. Their concerns over 'safety', 'security' and 'well-being' (everyone else's) will have us all in strait jackets.
It's time to put a stop to encroachment... for good.
"With what simplicity I should have demonstrated that man is by nature good, and that only his institutions have made him bad" Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Last modified: 11/18/13