Newly available

I have completed the formatting and now have two books available.  Both can be seen at my author's page
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/GregoryCoffin

A Social Carol:  

As in A Christmas Carol with Scrooge's transformation, Evan Sanders is to be visited by three spirits to alter his original and narrow worldview. In a society where businesses and the State have combined, Evan is protesting the collusion. However, when he begins to get what he wanted, he finds out that it wasn't what he wanted after all.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/226259

The Gospel of Reason:

As Jesus walked amongst men to advance the Gospel Truth, so does Arenos to advance an objective & secular standard of the Good. Through numerous interactions, Arenos meets individuals & experiences situations testing existing systems of thought & beliefs. From examining sacred political & religious Goods, The Gospel of Reason looks at how some of those Goods are proper,& how some are not, & why.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/226407

Allowing our Amendments to be Picked Apart Piecemeal

As part of the expanding State there have been encroachments upon our rights - even ones formally listed in the Constitution and even among those in the Bill of Rights.  A couple of examples include on public schools the creation of 'free speech' zones even though with the first Amendment the country is a free speech zone; the Patriot Act violating numerous Amendments, most notably removing due process; one more in particular is how gun control laws violate the second Amendment.  I do not mean that there is a blanket policy being created (though there is that as well), what I'm referring to is how various municipalities are violating the second Amendment; this is not something that they are trying to do - it is something that has been done and is already law.

If we look at any Amendment in the Bill of Rights we'll see that there are not local separations from other Amendments.  In Utah it is not required by law to be a Mormon violating the first Amendment; in Miami, FL it is not required by law to make jaywalkers have their feet bound and have to pay a $10,000 fine violating the eighth Amendment; the same is true for any place that by law they can ignore due process, put a defendant in double-jeopardy, restrict the press or force citizens to house soldiers as each of these violate various Amendments.

With our not allowing other Amendments to be broken down and accepted as some elected officials say we may enjoy our rights, why do we allow it with the second Amendment?  The second Amendment has been broken down into various components on what is allowable in one part of the country against another part: is this a gun free zone?  Where am I allowed to carry a concealed weapon? (there isn't a concealed restriction in the second Amendment, but they had pistols and jackets back then as well).  Where (why) do I have to register my firearm?-what if I move to another state that has expensive registration fees?-a long and convoluted registration process and what happens if an issue arises during that time?  Where is it a misdemeanor to carry a weapon if it is loaded, but allowable if it is unloaded? (what is the point of carrying a firearm if it is unloaded?)  What types of guns are allowable at all?

Each of the aforementioned, and numerous other restrictions, is a way that the second Amendment has been made piecemeal and depending on what state or even what city you are in, a potential violation of the law.  Just by carrying a loaded firearm for your defense (as protected by the second Amendment), depending on where you are or go to, that act could be punishable by prison or jail time and fines. 

What is the consequence of all of this?-that those citizens who try and be law-abiding have more ways that they have to be concerned about violating, thereby making it nearly impossible to actually follow as the laws vary so much depending on where one is, and at a given time for the local laws may change (from time to time and place to place).  Those who are intent on using their firearms to violate another's rights already are set to violate the law, so making it illegal that they are carrying a loaded weapon means little to them as they are going to commit a greater violation anyway.  But,  the ones who try and be law-abiding are hamstringing themselves in how they carry their firearm (if they're allowed at all) and are just making it so they have less of a chance to defend themselves.  If someone standing in front of you wants to kill you and has their firearm ready, but yours is in an approved, locked security case as well as unloaded, you'll be dead well before you'd have a chance at defending yourself.

Let's stop allowing this division of our second Amendment right.  It is every bit as important to not allow these restrictions as it is to not allow any area to deny the political opinions of liberals/conservatives/libertarians.  Our second Amendment right protects us from anything ranging from a dangerous animal, a criminal or a tyrant who wants to impose restrictions on other Amendments.

Capitalism versus...

As far as a recognized political system, there are really just two choices: Capitalism or Statism.  Capitalism may have the necessary redundancy of laissez faire to mean no State control; Statism means State control in some form and to some degree whether it be private ownership with State dictates (Fascism), private ownership of property but State ownership of production (Socialism), State owning/controlling everything (Communism/Totalitarianism), and all nuances therein such as the newly bandied about private ownership and private production but public risk (Cronyism).  In principle, it is this simple: Capitalism versus Statism.

Capitalism is not just a political system.  What makes Capitalism what it is, is that it’s a philosophical system first, and politics follow.  The laissez faire aspect of Capitalism means that people may choose to act (have the liberty) how they wish as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’ rights.  This leaves people free to accept the risk and reward for their choices.  For good or bad, but with no rights violations individuals may act.  Others may join in the risk and reward, but they do so by the acts of their own liberty.  Capitalism is the liberty to act, and the responsibility for those actions.

To remove the liberty aspect, to mandate any action changes the whole and it is no longer Capitalism that is being discussed, but some form of Statism.  It is mutually exclusive as the principle is either we have liberty to direct our lives or we do not, regardless of degree.

It is not Capitalism to have State welfare, individual or corporate.  It is not Capitalism to have mandated anything, regardless of how good it may be for us as individuals or society.  The banks need to be protected as ‘they’re too big to fail’ is not Capitalism as when the State comes in and buys into the bank to save it, the system has blended Socialism with Cronyism.  The same is true for when it is mandated that by existing we have to purchase health insurance, have to put certain warning labels on certain products, have ‘sin’ taxes applied to certain items, have to get permits and licenses to begin or work in a business among various other ways the State deems it can control our interactions.

The principle is clear: we are sovereign in our lives or we are not.  This does not give us license to harm another as is a quickly bandied about retort to Capitalism; harming another violates their rights, their sovereign nature.  Working at a State-level, we individuals get classified into convenient classes to be pitted against one another and with that classism, and with the State’s approval of ‘helping’ us, it removes our sovereignty and makes us tools to sate someone else’s wants.  Where it is wrong to harm another on an individual level, Statism says the harm is part of the ‘greater good’ and it can take an individual’s resources and liberty.  If the principle is first not for the individual but that the individual may be dictated against for another, then society is a mass of those who may be commanded to serve another by threat of law: how is that for a greater good?

It is not for the greater good.  If the base is not solidly built on individual rights, then the structure of any State is built on sand and it will just be a matter of time before it crumbles.

In Memoriam

RIP Ray Bradbury.

New book coming soon

Along with a makeover for Passion of Man: Savior now becoming The Gospel of Reason, I'll be publishing another book in the next few months.  Stay tuned... or the on-line equivalent.

Draw Muhammad Day with thoughts and perspective

For the original Draw Muhammad Day, a letter from Muslims who are not tyrannical:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_defense_of_free_speech_by_american_and_canadian_muslims/0018241

Book title change

I am changing the title and 'Passion of Man: Savior' will be soon 'The Gospel of Reason.'