Nine Levels of Government

2023-04-29 - Saturday - 11:46 AM - Meaning to Life Log.

Here are 9 main levels of government as follows.

Level 01: Individual/Personal Government for each human.
Level 02: Relational contract governments between lovers, partners, contracts, etc.
Level 03: Small groups governments between families, friends, neighborhoods, groups, work, religion, church, etc.
Level 04: Local governments: cities, towns, counties, communities, districts, regional, etc.
Level 05: State governments.
Level 06: Federal/national governments.
Level 07: International/global earth governments/collaboration/etc.
Level 08: Solar system/galaxy/universe/space governments.
Level 09: Ultimate government at the highest level over everything/everyone everywhere.

This is only a brief outline of nine levels. There may be more or less than nine levels in total depending on how you look at it. The last two above level seven is mostly fictional apart from universal laws and what not. I believe in minimizing level six governments and above. Let's focus more so on contract law, local, and state governments. Those are three main levels to be generic about it. I'm not saying get rid of federal and international governments and what have you. Well, I believe in reducing how much control and power larger governments, monopolies, cartels, have. I believe in reducing dependency on higher levels of government excessively, aggressively. Now, even if I endorsed anarchy, it does not matter because there is push back. Some people want more government. Some want less government. In the end, you end up with moderate government. But we only get an average level of government if we push for less and less government. The counter people state is anarchy sucks. I will not say anarchy is paradise. But anarchy does not exist any more than perfect communism does. By the way, communism is a hypothetical theory, as in it is more so a cover tyrants use. On the surface, they shout communism, socialism, sharing is caring, etc. But it is just a fake news cover story as communism governments take more and more from the average person. I'm against too much centralization, monopolies, cartels, tyranny. So, I endorse independence, decentralization, smaller governments which is more transparent to local communities. Focus on city and county level governments, AKA local level governments which could perhaps collaborate with other local level governments sometimes. When local levels collaborate with other local levels, we could call that state level. Same thing with higher levels, like if multiple states collaborate, you might call that federal. Same thing with international collaboration. I am not saying I am against collaboration. I am against being forced to collaborate. I don't like it if international bodies of government try to force national governments do things. I don't like it when federal governments try to force states towards action or what have you. I don't like it when state governments try to dictate what local governments must do. I am not going to say there are no exceptions. But I will say I want to try to minimize those exceptions. Instead, treat discourse between different levels of governments like you do in contract law. And to some extent, that is how some of it works sometimes at least as reflected in the 9th and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution of the United States of America.

Private Property

I believe in being guided by private property rights, ownership rights, land rights, things of that nature, as much as possible. Let's call this level one governments, for the most part. Level two governments is dependent on this first level of government. I would rather focus more on the value of private property. If I own a car, if it is on my land, we can assume the car is my private property. I have ownership over the car assuming I am not still renting or buying the vehicle. Assuming there are no mortgages between banks. Also, it gets tricky when it comes to auto insurance, permits, driving licenses, etc. All of this may be contract law. Some of this may be state law related. So, some of this can get complicated. But if you can isolate all of these elements from the picture to simplify the situation, then you might assume that if you own car, then you therefore own a car. It is that simple in theory. In reality, it is not that simple even as it would be better if it was perhaps. So, if you steal my car, then we might assume therefore you stole my car. Under ownership rights, we can assume my car is my car if it is in fact my car. Simple logic 101. If you stole my car, then you therefore stole my car. You owe me the car back. Courts, lawyers, judges, and jurors, are designed to deal with conflicts. You could say it is your car. I could say it is my car. So, we could both claim ownership of the same car. So, a trial might be able to resolve the conflict. Assuming the courts are not too corrupt and whatever else, we hope the rightful owner can get the car back. Perhaps the car robber must pay money to compensate. Maybe go to jail. The specific punishments can be debated. But this is a simple foundation to private property rights. The problem is in reality it is rarely that simple because of all of the different variables within situations. Your own body should be your own private property. Who owns the roads? Good question. Who owns the Internet? Good question. What about copyright? A very good question. Don't get me started on that. And the list of other questions goes on and on. We could be here all day talking about all of these things and more. I just don't like it when higher levels of governments try to dictate lower levels of governments including that of basic private property/personal individual ownership rights, I mean outside of like agreed upon contracts and what not. Like in other words, if two parties agree to something, then you might say a deal is a deal. Now, that may not always be the case. Maybe some contracts should be broken if you feel like they are too bad. And some contracts should be broken perhaps if they are violating the private property rights of others who are in fact outside of the contracts therein. But I would say take it to court and have judges rule on what already happened in the past as opposed to forcing judges to rule on POTENTIAL DAMAGES of a HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE of WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN SOMEDAY, I mean apart from perhaps enough evidence of what already happened be it collateral damages or whatever that already happened. Just prove it happened already with facts, evidence, proof, truth, videos, documents, pictures, timestamps, testimonies, science, DNA, records, papers, etc. My concern is that courts can rule more on hypothetical and imaginary future concerns. I do not believe in that. I don't want to weaponize courts to focus too much on PREVENTION OF FUTURE EVENTS WHICH MIGHT MAYBE HAPPEN. I know some people believe in PREVENTION VIA THE COURTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENTS, ETC. I disagree. I believe the primary role of the courts should be more so on CORRECTION in seeking JUSTICE for conflicts, like correction for violations of private property rights. Start with that first level of private property. Courts should focus on being that third party in resolving conflicts/overlaps/interconnection between private property rights. But it must relating things which already happened in the past. But too often people try to use the law to go after potential crimes which might happen. I say let's just focus on the crimes that already happened. If you steal my gun, I should not take you to court for shooting up a school assuming you didn't do it yet. I should take you to court for taking my gun. Now, if there is evidence you were planning to shoot up Sandy Hook, then that should be presented during the trial. So, the ruling may be harsher if there is conspiracy meaning if you were planning to do commit future crimes with the gun. But planning to commit a crime is not the same as actually committing the crime. We should not conflate the two.

Discord Drama

04:35 PM

141/ Happy Mommy not happy. But she is fake news. Don't let these punks fool you. On Discord, she is pretending to ask me questions. Folks, these are not real questions. Good thing NOBODY GOES TO THIS DISCORD SERVER. 142/ For the record, it doesn't matter how many times I answer questions, AIDS Sodom and Gomorrah Chrisian Nationalism people will ask me the same old questions again the same as they did to Trump/Alex Jones/Crowder/ Vit D Tucker Carlson/Stefan Molyneux. 143/ Like I said in videos/articles, I'm aware of policies be it of Trump or be it of others too, but there is nuance, there is multiple ways interpreting and carrying out policies. I may or may not disagree with specifics of policies, but so what? I still voted Trump 2020. 144/ I will still vote Trump 2024. Trump will win 2024. You should vote Trump period. It is that simple. We can talk all day about policies. I talk policies all day for so many years since at least 2016 or longer meaning the past *+ years at a minimum or much longer. 145/ People like Happy Mommy on Discord will act like I don't talk politics when I do. Do you live under a rock? I talk politics. This is well documented online and everywhere for so many years. You can see what I wrote. You can see my videos all over the Internet. We all know. 146/ People like Mommy might be a troll or whatever. They say stuff. They repeat stuff. They may know better. Maybe they try to break you, spam you, troll you, hack you, abuse you, attack you, etc. But it can be and might be quite obvious what they do many times over. 147/ It might be unlikely that I can change her mind meaning not worth my time to answer her questions. I might still engage sometimes with a person like Mommy BECAUSE some may read the conversation and wake up. Maybe something will be gain from the dialog. It's hard to say. 148/ Mommy wrote: "BTW I'm a life long Republican zero likes Joey." But Republican RINOS are leftists, they are not good. I am not a RINO LEFTIST unlike Mommy.