For Your Safety

Say, we can go where we want to
To a place they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind
--Men Without Hats

Freedom is ours by birth. Security is a good that must be purchased. Because its core competence is force, government naturally seeks to sell its strong arms to willing buyers who want to feel safe.

It's been going on for millenia. Live inside our fortress walls in exchange for your labor. Our knights will protect you for tribute. We will confiscate your weapons to keep you safe. Variations of the classic protection racket that exploits fear.

The most heinous regimes in world history have commonly been built with protection planks.

A new one is under construction before our very eyes.

Evolutionary Pressure

Look in the mirror
And see that you've been taken
Oh, you won't surrender
And now your heart is breakin'
--John Waite

The Darwinian perspective of evolution famously highlights processes of variation, selection, and retention that bring about adaptive change. These processes are often assumed to unfold gradually. When something is said to 'evolve,' the pace of change is commonly seen as slow and measured.

However, research in biology, scientific progress, organizations, and other domains suggests that evolutionary change is commonly not gradual, but abrupt (Gersick, 1991). Following long periods of relative stability, radical change occurs in brief periods of upheaval. Surviving these disruptive periods requires timely adaptive response.

This 'punctuated equilibrium' view of adaptation suggests that pressure for change exerted by environments varies temporally. Most of the time, pressure is relatively mild and necessitates only minor, incremental responses. During periods of upheaval, however, pressure is acute and demands major reorientation in order to adapt. 

Stated differently, 'evolutionary pressure' increases dramatically in disruptive environments. As evolutionary pressure grows, so does impetus for radical response.

Among the interesting points made in this article is the notion that public health policies, particularly those related to mandatory vaccination, create disruptive environments for CV19 that increase evolutionary pressure for adaptation. Vaccinating large groups of people, particularly groups that generally do not benefit from the vaccine (e.g., young people) puts strong evolutionary pressure on the virus to become vaccine resistant. To become more vaccine resistant, viruses must develop new characteristics that enable them to infect hosts--a process that may make adaptive forms of the virus more dangerous.

If vaccines were instead administered only to the elderly and other at-risk groups, then evolutionary pressure on the virus would have been reduced and, plausibly, the vaccines would have been effective for longer periods of time. Moreover, with less motivation to mutate radically, the virus would be prone instead to follow a path of incremental change as it adapts to a less threatening environment. As hosts contract less acute forms of the virus, natural immunity increases and infection severity decreases, leading to dissipation of the public health threat.

Reference

Gersick, C.J.G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 1-36.

Exposing the Splinter

"Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life--that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad."
--Morpheus (The Matrix)

I increasingly suspect that this chain of logic may be true.

For restless minds bothered by the feeling that there has been something wrong with the course of events over the past 18 months, this may be the splinter.

Causes of Crisis

"Gentlemen, we have a crisis situation."
--Jester (Top Gun)

Interesting discussion of how we've evolved into a Constitutional Crisis situation. Especially liked the review of the negative influence of the Progressive movement.

I thought that the author missed the mark on a couple of points, however. He correctly notes that the Three Fifths clause which legitimized slavery was not a principle of the Constitution, but a compromise. But the author implies that it was a necessary compromise to close the deal that ultimately led to the union of states. Furthermore he argues, using some cites from Frederick Douglass, that the Constitution was ultimately and anti-slavery document. Because it was grounded in the 'all men created equal' principle set forth in the Declaration, tension was created by the compromise that ultimately led to slavery being thrown off.

Very neat, but what if enough anti-slavery framers had the cojones to stand their ground at the convention? Might the union have included fewer states in the beginning? Yes. But the principle would have stood from the outset. And millions of lives would have subsequently been saved. Indeed, it can be argued that willingness to 'compromise' ranks highly in the factors that have led to the Constitutional Crisis that we face.

Before lambasting Progressives for wanting to consolidate power in the executive branch, the author claims that there are times when the president rightfully should wield such power. In the event of war and crises, he suggests, the president must be able to circumvent constitutional balances of power to, essentially, 'preserve the union.' He is undoubtedly covering for Lincoln, whom he is sympathetic to and quotes liberally in the article despite Lincoln's abuse of power during his administration.

Lincoln and other presidents have used 'emergency powers' to do precisely what the author seems to argue against--i.e., the durable confiscation of liberty by an authoritarian state. Although he quotes work by both Jefferson and Locke that appear sympathetic to concentrating authority with the executive branch in times of crisis, there is no provision for doing such in the Constitution itself.

Indeed, the inconsistencies demonstrate by the author suggest that there is plenty of blame to go around for our present crises. The actions of many so-called 'conservatives' have done as much to denigrate the Constitution as those of Progressives.

Constitution Day

Benjamin Martin: May I sit with you?
Charlotte Selton: It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
--The Patriot

Two hundred and thirty four years ago, 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the document that would be debated among the states and, ultimately, ratified through supermajority approval nine months later.

Its contents remain exceptional and, unfortunately, unknown to most Americans. 

If you count yourself among them, then it's a fine day to throw off your ignorance.

Paging Dr Galt

Any place is better
Starting from zero, got nothing to lose
Maybe we'll make something
Me, myself, I've got nothing to prove
--Tracy Chapman

Example of many articles discussing shrinking hospital capacity as vaccine mandates drive health care workers to hit the silk.

No surprise. This is ECON 101 type stuff. 

Impose regulations that limit producers and raise their costs and, inevitably, supply will leave the market.

This will mean reduced access to care and higher prices.

Paging Dr Galt.

Hypothetical Threats

Professor Groeteschele: Do you believe that Communism is NOT our mortal enemy?
Brigadier General Warren A. Black: You're justifying murder.
Professor Groeteschele: Yes, to keep from being murdered.
--Fail Safe

A common argument among the pro vax mandate crowd goes like this. If you are not vaccinated, then you might infect others with the CV19 virus. Therefore you must get vaccinated to mitigate the threat that you pose.

Let's set aside the scientific issue of vaccine effectiveness for now--an issue that calls into question individual capacity to convey the virus regardless of vaccination status, and the extent to which vaccination protects individuals from infection.

Instead, let's focus on the legal issues. The argument proposes a hypothetical threat: that an individual could be carrying a virus that might be conveyed to others in a manner that could lead their infection. This of course, is purely speculation and conjecture. Accusations of wrongdoing framed in this manner would be quickly dismissed in courts of law.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals and their property against unreasonable search and seizure by government. Any search and seizure must be preceded by a warrant, affirmed by a judge, that articulates the rationale (i.e., 'probable cause') that justifies government invasion, specifies the particulars of the invasion--e.g, the place to be searched, or the individuals or items to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections from the federal down to the state level.

It should be clear that a hypothetical threat, where someone wants to forcibly interfere with the pursuits of another individual out of speculation that the individual might harm them is not a legitimate reason for government intervention. Any forcible interference that does take place under such circumstances must be deemed as a criminal act of aggression.

The forced vaccination argument therefore proceeds along similar lines as the forced quarantine argument.

The pro vax crowd want to preempt a hypothetical threat by imposing forced vaccinations on individuals--with no probable cause nor due process. Similar to preemptive military strikes, such action is characteristic of aggression rather than of self-defense.

Premeditated Destruction

There's a room where the light won't find you

Holding hands while the walls come tumbling down

When they do, I'll be right behind you

--Tears for Fears

Since the beginning of the pandemic, reasoned minds worldwide have been disturbed by how events have unfolded, and by the illogical nature of policy response. Personally, I theorized about an initially random but increasingly organized movement among various factions to advance their interests as authoritarians inevitably perceive that crisis presents opportunity.

Here is an alternative theory proposed by a German analyst. I am going to list key aspects of his theory below.

The pandemic and associated events over the past 18 months were not random or accidental but planned.

The master planners consist of a complex of large IT companies (discretionary power over huge data pool), global asset managers (raw financial power), and various policymakers (state power).

This is a plan hatched out of desperation to combat threats to the complex that have been many years in the making. 

The central threat to the complex stems from increasingly futile efforts of central bankers to inflate money supplies through evermore credit creation. With interest rates now effectively at the 'zero bound' since the 2008 credit collapse, the complex have lost the primary tool for advancing (read: funding) their interests.

Because driving interest rates negative to keep the wheels on the wagon would be socially unacceptable to the people at large, the complex requires a strategy that people would accept. Their solution: create a new system using a veil of economic and social chaos.

The system involves digital currency controlled by central banking authority. No more paper money. All money would be digital. Such a system provides power over money creation, surveillance over all monetary transactions; control over what money can purchase; where and with whom money can be spent, and the times that govern purchase; power to set and collect taxes; the power to impose fines; ability to distribute funds to whomever is deemed worthy. 

Such a system is seen by the complex as necessary to keep their interests (both economic and social) alive.

Under 'normal' conditions, the disenfranchisement that such a system would create would make it subject to huge pushback by the general populace.

Therefore, under the textbook authoritarian assumption about the crisis-opportunity relationship, the complex has determined that the most likely way that their the new system can be implemented is by a premeditated series of events that create economic and social chaos.

Enter CV19. Years of prior discussion and scenario planning informed the complex that a health crisis presented the best opportunity for creating fear and submission necessary for widespread acceptance of the new digital control system. Beginning late 2019, the complex began to implement the plan.

The plan's essence has been to implement policy responses to the pandemic that disturb economic and social fabrics in a manner that gradually escalates to the point of rupture. When the system collapses, people will beg for a policy solution like the digital currency and control system.

The author is careful to note influential role of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in the complex's preparation and execution of the plan. The WEF has 'trained' nearly all leaders of the complex, and has populated the ranks with thousands more like minds set on the goal of premeditated destruction.

On an optimistic note, the author suggests that the complex's plan is destined to fail. The 'deadly virus' narrative is already collapsing, leading to increasingly illogical arguments for pandemic countermeasures that even half wits are waking up to. Protests and pushback are growing.

Put differently, the complex's plan depends on chronic ignorance among a great majority of the world's people. But in order to advance its plan, the complex must resort to increasingly absurd measures certain to alert multitudes to the crimes being committed.

Truth will win. Evil will lose.

New Resistance

I won't be coming home tonight
My generation will put it right
We're not just making promises
That we know we'll never keep
--Genesis

When Trump was elected as president four years ago, signs saying 'Resist' sprung up. Under the new administration, slogans and signage using the R word are surfacing again.

The new resistance clearly opposes a socialistic state hostile toward freedom and liberty.

Twenty Years

When my teeth bite down I can see the blood
Of a thousand men who have come and gone
Now we grieve 'cause now it's gone
Things were good when we were young
--Von Bondies

Twenty years to the day. Yet, when I see a still or video of that day, I'm right back there. Like so many others, my world changed that day. 

Digesting events on that day, I was given marching orders from my Higher Power: Get smart on the founding of the America. Understand just how radical, and disruptive, a nation conceived in liberty was--and continues to be. Familiarize yourself with arguments pitting freedom vs security and how the framers addressed this tension. Prepare yourself for an assault on liberty.

Thus began a journey that continues to this day. I started with our key founding documents. Declaration. Constitution, Bill of Rights. The founding context. Federalist papers. Anti-federalist papers. Austrian economics. Mises. Rothbard. Hayek. Previous assaults on liberty. Civil War and Lincoln. Marx and Engels. Wilson and WWI. FDR and the New Deal. WWII. Studies of the Great Depression. Garrett. Nock. Paterson. Chodorov. Hazlitt. It goes on...

At first, I thought my orders were meant to lend understanding to declines in freedom seen since 9/11. Travel restrictions. The Patriot Act. Huge increases in deficit spending, debt, and monetary inflation.

However, recent events find me suspecting that the last twenty years were just prep--a warm up for what's coming.

The real assault on liberty may lurk dead ahead.

Best Way Out?

We chased our pleasures here
Dug our treasures there
But can you still recall
The time we cried
Break on through to the other side
--The Doors

One argument advanced by proponents of vaccine mandates is that vaccines are the best way out of pandemic conditions. To hold credence, this line of thought requires persuasive support, much of it scientific in nature. However, theory and evidence are far from conclusive with respect to vaccines. In fact, other alternatives garner substantial support.

The human body's primary natural line of defense against viral infection is the immune system. Immune systems are networks of biological processes that detect and respond to a variety of pathogens that threaten human health. Strong immune systems ward off infections and reduce the impact of infections that do occur. They are also adaptive, meaning that once they interact with pathogens they commonly build resistance against future invasion.

General factors associated with immune system strength are well known and largely life style related. Proper rest and nutrition. Exercise and fitness. Supplements such as Vitamin D and zinc can bolster immune system strength particularly during winter months when exposure to sunshine is reduced.

It should not be surprising that these customary principles of immune system strength appear to apply to the CV19 context. For example, studies have shown that Vitamin D deficiency is associated with CV19 mortality. Seasonality patterns associated with CV19 patterns are also evident. I have also seen several papers (not cited here) suggesting significant relationships between individual fitness levels and/or self-reported degrees of exercise and susceptibility to CV19 infection, hospitalization, and death. We also know, of course, that CV19 generally does far more damage to the elderly and those with serious comorbidities--a skew that coincides with generally compromised immune systems.

Their endogenous, preventative nature make immune systems an intuitive, and economical 'way out' of a pandemic. Why public health officials have not stressed the well established benefits of natural immune system health as a principle route away from the CV19 situation is dumbfounding and, thus, subject to speculation. What we do know is that initiatives to improve natural immunity are plausible alternatives to vaccines as countermeasures to a pandemic.

Another countermeasure involves therapeutics. Therapeutics are medicines that help you get well when you get sick. Therapeutics are primarily remedial in nature. In the context of CV19, monoclonal antibodies and ivermectin are among the remedies that have been employed to help people overcome infection.

Strangely, many public health agencies and officials have downplayed, and in some cases outright criticized, the efficacy of CV19 therapeutic treatments that clearly work in many cases. Regardless, therapeutics offer another proven measure of relief from pandemic conditions.

Assisted by therapeutics or not, people who overcome infections are prone to elevated levels of future resistance against similar illnesses. Once exposed to a pathogen, immune systems develop capacity to prevent recurrence of infection. This elevated resistance is commonly durable for long time periods. This leads us to yet another 'way out' of a pandemic supported by scientific principles: herd immunity.

The notion of herd immunity is intuitive. Thanks to our adaptive immune systems, it is difficult for us to get sick from the same pathogen twice in close by time frames. In the case of an infectious virus, as more people get sick from the virus and then recover, there are less hosts for virus to subsequently infect. At some threshold, enough people have contracted the virus and developed subsequent resistance to reinfection that it is difficult for the virus to subsequently spread. The herd has effectively become immune to the virus. 

Precisely what percentage of a population must contract a pathogen to achieve herd immunity has been subject to considerable scientific debate. Evidence suggests that herd immunity thresholds are pathogen dependent and may not be discernable until after the fact. What we do know is that cumulative infections create barriers to more infection, providing another route away from a pandemic. 

Compared to the above alternatives, a vaccine does not offer a clearly superior 'way out' of a pandemic--particularly in the case of CV19. The primary objective of a vaccine is motivate immune systems to develop defenses against particular infectious diseases. They typically do so by injecting agents into the body that resemble the disease-causing micro-organism. These agents are often sourced from weakened or dead forms of the microbe. The immune system detects the agent as a threat and then activates the usual self-defense mechanisms.

Finding the right agents for a vaccine--one that both provides effective defense against the pathogen with a safety profile free of significant side-effects--usually takes years. The time lag suggests the impracticality of building public health policy around the development of a effective, safe vaccine to combat a novel virus that creates pandemic conditions. By the time the vaccine is developed, the virus may have run its course. 

Enter the mRNA vaccines developed in response to CV19. Unlike traditional vaccines, prospective mRNA vaccines can be designed and produced in a matter of months--making them attractive as timely pandemic countermeasures. Unfortunately, the science associated with mRNA vaccines remains unproven. All previous mRNA projects have failed, meaning that vaccine candidates developed in response to the CV19 pandemic should be regarded as experimental in nature. 

One would think, then, that the allure of quick development time would be offset by a prolonged period of careful evaluation--extra careful in the case of an unproven, experimental vaccine technology. 

That hasn't happened. Instead, the CV19 vaccines were subjected to small numbers, short period, narrowly focused tests with little evaluation of long term effects, and rapidly 'approved' by regulatory agencies.

There is growing evidence that the CV19 vaccines provide, at best, short term protection against infection that erodes over the course of months. Natural immunity built from previous infection appears to be significantly more durable. There is also increasing evidence of undesirable side-effects.

Proponents of vaccine mandates, it seems, will need to reach for another argument, as ones based on scientific theory and evidence are unfavorable.

Reviving Nullification

Gonna break it

Gonna shake it

Let's forget it better still
--The Who

Last week the Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Texas statute that provides for civil litigation against abortion providers in the state. Because the high court had previously upheld the principles of Roe v. Wade that has legalized more than 60 million abortions since 1973, Judge Nap reasons that the a five majority on the court is signaling that the concept of nullification is being revived.

Nullification stems from the notion that any state, via legislative or judicial means, can determine that a federal law or mandate is unconstitutional. If it does so, then the law is 'nullified,' meaning that the state can legally ignore it.

The idea of nullification was supported by many of our founding ancestors, including Jefferson and Madison. Nullification was employed several times in the early days of the United States--perhaps most notably in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s. However, it has not been applied seriously since the outcome of the Civil War--an outcome which called into question the true sovereignty of the states.

A nullification-based interpretation of last week's ruling would be that Roe is unconstitutional, and that Texas has the sovereign power to declare it as such. 

It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court's decision amounts to a temporary ruling. Challengers mount cases that ultimately will put the issue before the high court again. At that point, customary full briefings and oral arguments will require more transparency among the justices concerning their views on the legality of nullification.

Until then, the Texas ruling revives hope in the utility of nullification--perhaps, as the Judge call it, "the most effective peaceful tool for returning the federal government to the confines of the Constitution.

Stripping Down

"Looks like we're going for a night out in Vegas!"
--Swamp Thing (Con Air)

Rallies in Nevada today to protest CV19-related mandates in schools. Focal point is Clark County/Las Vegas.

Parents have pulled kids out of school and hundreds of school staff have 'called out' sick. Many have gathered on the Strip.

Have a feeling we're gonna see a lot more of this.

Ignoring the Skew

Here I am in silence
Looking 'round without a clue
I find myself alone again
All alone with you
--Information Society

When the media reports CV19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, they rarely make an effort to split the results out by the associated demographics. Consequently, when people read that CV19 numbers are increasing, they naturally see themselves or people similar to them laying in the ICU bed.

But as Stanford's John Ioannidis once again reminds us, CV19 data are skewed toward the elderly, particularly those in nursing homes and possessing comorbidities. 

Lower age groups sport small infection fatality rates (IFRs). For example younger people face the following risk of death from CV19 infection as estimated on p. 12:

0-19 yrs: 0.0027% IFR

20-29: 0.014%

30-39: 0.031%

40-49: 0.082%

50-59: 0.27%

60-69: 0.59%

For comparison, median IFR in community dwelling elderly was estimated to be 2.4%--with nursing home residents even higher (p. 11).

The results once again suggest the prudence of public health strategies that focus on protecting the elderly and other higher-risk groups rather than the general population. 

They also suggest the ethical problems associated with media reports that ignore the skew.

Bad Breadth

The news is blue
It has its own way to get to you
What can I do?
I'll never remember my time with you
--Sniff 'N' the Tears

Despite new highs in major equity indexes, stock market breadth has been weakening. This means fewer and fewer names are propping up the averages.

When investors become more risk averse, they first rotate out of higher beta, racier names and into stocks deemed 'safer.' Money flows to mega caps thought to be market stalwarts and less susceptible to big declines. This means names like Google (GOOG), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), et al have been attracting disproportionate funds at the expense of smaller issues. 

Because of their huge market caps, these stocks can move the indexes higher even though most issues aren't going up. The bulls still feel good, however, because the indexes are still increasing.

As sentiment continues to shift, however, investors decide that even the big names are vulnerable and begin to unload them. When that happens, there is nothing left to support higher prices.

The bears then slide into the driver's seat.

no positions

Camp Fires

Now did you read the news today

They say the danger's gone away

But I can see the fire's still alight

There burning into the night
--Genesis

It is hard not to wonder just how many people would do just this.

Theory suggests that the answer is 'a lot.' When people face threats, they are generally less prone to review options and they centralize decision-making authority. They fail to think things through.

When the threat is a novel one, this can be maladaptive behavior.

Disarmed Down Under

I come from a land down under
Where beer does flow and men chunder
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder
You better run, you better take cover
--Men at Work

Over the past couple months, Australia has emerged as a leader in draconian CV19 policies. Lockdowns where people are not permitted outside. Mandatory vaccinations. Police wielding night sticks in the streets, arresting curfew violators and beating protestors.

The degree of authoritarianism on display has been stunning and runs counter to common belief in the good natured, low key, independent nature of Australian people. After all, is this not the country of Crocodile Dundee?

Sadly, decades of anti-gun policy and sentiment have greatly reduced the capacity of Australian citizens to defend themselves against such tyranny. Laws that prohibit gun ownership for self-defense purposes. Gun buyback programs. Amnesty periods where people could turn in 'illegal' weapons without punishment.

The Australian situation offers a textbook example of what is liable to occur when a citizenry disarms itself.

Misery Loves Company

Mitch Leary: Do you believe in the nobility of suicide?
Frank Horrigan: No, but if you wanna blow your goddam head off, go ahead. Be my guest.
Mitch Leary: Nicely put, Frank, but I don't want to leave this miserable world alone.
--In the Line of Fire

Why are some people so opposed to the notion of freedom? Two plausible answers appear below.

Another is desire for shared misery. Free people live their lives, not someone else's. Those who choose not to do this will be miserable. And they will want others to share their misery--even if it takes force to do so.

Misery, as it is said, loves company

Compliance and Agency

Hans Gruber: Who are you then?

John McClane: Just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass.
--Die Hard

In authoritarian states, a crucial attribute of human behavior is compliance. A compliant person obeys rules and commands--ideally without question or protest.

As authoritarian states grow, demand for compliance extends beyond the ruling class. Obedient followers exert exert pressure on other citizens to be compliant as well. 

What stops growing isomorphic pressure from creating a completely compliant state? In the language of institutional theory, the word is agency. Agency occurs when individuals act strategically to advance their own personal interests in manners that defy status quo institutional demands. 

Agents almost always constitute minorities in strong institutional fields. But when agency becomes active, they can, much to the authoritarians' chagrin, muck up the best laid plans for compliance.

Rose Colored Glasses

And now that your rose is in bloom
A light hits the gloom on the grey
--Seal

Which of these rival hypotheses is more valid?

H1: Government officials and their political operatives will seek to manipulate information, including the reporting of events, in manners that favor their interests.

H2: Government officials and their political operatives will not seek to manipulate information, including the reporting of events, in manners that favor their interests.

Given no particular context, most people will likely choose H1. Government officials, like all people, will be prone to spin information in self-interested manners. Government officials have even more capacity to do so than Everyman, given their influence over media sources and the intellectual set. 

But here's the thing, insert the name of particular government officials and political operative into the hypotheses above and response profiles associated with the above question are certain to change. Respondents who are familiar with and oppose the political ideologies of the named official will still choose H1.

But respondents who are familiar with and partisan to the political ideologies of the named official will be more prone to choose H2. 

Among the theoretical bases for this prediction is social identity theory. Members of the 'ingroup' are most likely to be perceived as good and unbiased. They say, "Cut me some slack," and ingroup partisans oblige.

'Outgroup' members get no slack. No rose colored glasses for them.

Political affinity alters perception of general truths.