So I've been away for a while. It's nothing personal. I've just been busy taking over the world. I wanted to share my Legacy Amendment Artist Initiative Grant Proposal, which is a current project of mine in the battle against licentiousness and insanity. I submitted this proposal a few weeks ago on the MN Art Board's online application page. I also included Gunther's Great Campaign as my work sample. Here it is for your review. I wonder if I will qualify.
Requested grant amount
$10,000.
Project Summary
Research, author, and publish a didactic children's book
that encourages thinking critically about the consequences of social decisions
that authorize the redistribution of private property.
Project outcome # 1
Grant funds would allow the time and resources to create a
non-commercial project that would help me develop my skills as a writer.
How outcome #1 will be assessed
The outcome will be apparent by the reader's ability to
comprehend the didactic material and to compare it to their own real-life
experiences.
Project outcome #2
To engage local artists of various vocations, including authors,
editors, designers, and illustrators.
How outcome #2 will be assessed
This outcome will be evident by the various partners that
will be required to produce a book of this quality, which will be similar to
that of my work sample.
Artist Background
I have been a professional technical writer for over 10
years, and during that time I have increasingly enjoyed writing fiction on the
side for recreation. I began to consider pursuing a career in creative writing
in 2008 and began a home-based publishing company (Penelope Press LLC) to
organize, publish, and sell my original works. Since then I have published
three titles, and am currently attempting to expand my skills and abilities as
an artist.
Major goal
The major goal in all my writing is to elucidate
enlightenment concepts that are tenets of Western civilization, yet frequently
overlooked in modern society. My major goal in this project is to explain, in
detail, how social programs like the Legacy Amendment violate property rights,
marginalize free speech, and produce results that are usually the opposite of
their noble goals. I recognize the application guidelines prohibit grant
activities intended to influence legislation. My intention is not to influence
legislation, but to explain the destructive nature of all redistributive social
programs, using the Legacy Amendment as an example. Specifically, I intend to
demonstrate, in poetry and illustrations, how a majority of voting Minnesotans
authorized the redistribution of property from non-consenting Minnesotans
through an objectionable sales tax, and how those funds are now being used to
authorize a small group of individuals to define the future of art in Minnesota
according to their own discretion, and in a way that discriminates against
controversial artists. I intend to explain how the portion of Legacy Amendment
funds intended to "preserve our arts and cultural heritage" is
instead resulting in an unfortunate redefinition of "art" in
Minnesota from a voluntary, spontaneous, and creative activity to one that is
regulated, discriminatory, and dependent on the forceful confiscation of
property from a multitude of objecting taxpayers. Through clear text and
quality illustrations I intend to show that because of this program, artists
have an incentive to compromise their creative inclinations in order to conform
to projects they believe will be approved by the Art Board. The most clear
example of this is, as stated earlier, the prohibition of activities
"intended to influence legislation," which discriminates against, particularly,
any art that would be critical of the Legacy Amendment itself. This requirement
alone assures all projects funded by the Legacy Amendment will in part act as
propaganda for the Legacy Amendment in all its oppressiveness, and thus will
perpetuate the degrading state of our 'arts and cultural heritage.' In a larger
sense, this conflict of interest exposes the general nature of governments'
ability to perpetuate itself beyond the consent of the governed–its
licentiousness resulting in the latent subjugation of millions of people to
each other, and especially to a political class of authoritarian governing
elites. This project is intended to challenge the general premise that
government force and regulation can be an effective and legitimate replacement
for voluntary cooperation among consenting partners.
Barriers
My barriers include the time necessary to author the story
and the financing to afford the help I will need during production and
distribution.
Actions
The $5000 artist fee is my compensation, and will be
necessary to afford the time required to author the story. The remaining $5000
will be used for production costs, including raw materials, and hiring an
illustrator, designer, and printer.
Community component
After project completion, I intend to distribute the book to
public elementary schools throughout Minnesota free of charge, and to
participate in classroom book readings.
Impact on the state and creative community
I believe I offer a unique and distinctive point of view to
the creative community. I hope readers will be encouraged to think critically
about the decisions we make as a society, and how those impact our lives in
ways we may not notice. Also, Minnesota has a legacy of fostering art that is
groundbreaking and controversial, and I hope this project will demonstrate such
art is still welcomed in the state of Minnesota.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
In writing, as in life, I sincerely believe that what is not said is far more relevant, true, and interesting. I suppose that is all I ought to say on the subject. I know I've already written too much (and lived too little).
It is very certain that it is the effect of conversation with the beauty of the soul, to beget a desire and need to impart to others the knowledge and love. If utterance is denied, the thought lies like a burden on the man. Always the seer is a sayer. Somehow his dream is told; somehow he publishes it with solemn joy; sometimes with pencil on canvas; sometimes with chisel on stone; sometimes in towers and aisles of granite his soul’s worship is builded; sometimes in anthems of indefinite music; but clearest and most permanent, in words. -R. W. Emerson
"Clearest and most permanent, in words." Beg your pardon? Licking the hand that feeds you a bit much, might you say? I'll be as clear and permanent as possible: If this statement were unquestionably true–if words were more clear than any illustration, and more permanent than chiseled granite–this sentence would not exist. It would not need to. An author of your aptitude would know better. Your reader would balk at the overly plain and evident. I know the truth, and beget the desire to impart upon others the knowledge of your attempt to disarm, flatter, and then sell an outrageous delusion. Ha! "Beauty of the soul." I am not hypnotized by your appeals to my vanity. You assume, Mr. Emerson, that I need your reassurances, or that I have what you define as a "soul." I have this: the dirty truth about your motives. The seer is the sayer, and my utterance will not be denied: you are a fraud and a liar. My dream is told, with solemn joy, that you have been exposed as nothing more than a huckster for "words." You trade them for bread and God knows what else. What arrogance. What conceit. The shameless criminal goes unpunished. And even from your grave, after centuries, you continue your beg for this ridiculous fantasy. And, you may do so for eternity, but I will not be swindled by it–not by words alone.
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. -Marvin Simkin, "Individual Rights"
One plus one is three
[A wolf and a lamb are at a table peacefully eating dinner. Wolf says:] If what, my friend, you say is true, then one plus one is three, not two. One plus two is three, it's plain, and two plus one is three the same. But tell me, lamb, how can it be, that one plus one does equal three?
[Lamb explains] It's quite simple, you will see how one plus one is surely three. You confess, and know it's true, that three does equal one plus two. So, I say, doubt not the sum, that three is also one plus one.
[Wolf] My truest, kindest, dearest friend, my faith in you can have no end. But when I take this kettle drum, and then I add another one. I tally each just like a shoe. A pair is never three but two.
[Lamb] But wait! You mustn't close the case. It seems so simple on its face. But, if you choose to free your mind, the truth I trust you'll surely find. And while you do not see it yet, take heed, no need to sulk or fret.
In this hand I hold a schmickle. This one bears a turquoise pickle. One I raise up to the sky, the other dangles with a tie. And now, I've proven, must I shout? Just two? You surely have some doubt.
[Wolf] No, I haven't, I'm afraid. Put together, two are made. A mathematician I am not, nor the smartest of the lot. But if that lot is me plus you, the total is not three but two.
[Lamb] A stubborn bulldog you've become. To what do you owe one plus one? Seems to me it's quite a lot. So, wolf, let me tell you what: John, my friend, put up our coat, and let us take a little vote. [John is another lamb]
My friend, this is democracy. And John and I, we each vote three. I'm afraid your vote of one, is clearly less my dearest chum. Perhaps you now begin to see, how one plus one does equal three.
[Wolf] You have made your strongest case. And put me in a lonely place. But greater numbers less one fact, in this case, only can subtract. You've proven nothing, don't you see? But weakness in democracy.
[Lamb] John and I are not afraid. We have our minds securely made. You will believe us, this is true. You will reject your precious two. Come now, friend, it's only math. Spare your life, and awful wrath. [Lambs looking hostile at wolf]
[Wolf] Friends, dear John, plus one makes two, you challenge more than what is true. A fourth can make this vote a tie. My only friend out in the nigh. Reader, I must yield to you. Does one plus one make three or two?
"If two, proceed to next page. If three, the page after."
[If two, the three they go back to eating dinner.]
[If three, the wolf is alone with fur hanging out of his mouth.]
I have Lyme disease. Lyme is fascinating. The bacteria, borrelia burgdorferi, is a spirochete, which means the little buggers are coiled, like a cork screw, and prefer to burrow through collagen and tissue for mobility. They are unique in that they share characteristics of both bacteria and a parasite. Like bacteria, they can alter their genetic code to survive various environments. Like a parasite, they migrate throughout the body and, over time, feast on human tissue for sustenance. They evade complete destruction by antibiotic using biofilm, which is like a cocoon surrounding the little rascals, who, when assaulted, tend to nap in their cozy shell until the siege is over, then resume their havoc. They further avoid attack by digging their way to some remote part of the body where blood flow is absent, like joints, or other safe havens, like brain. Oh yes, they drill their way through the blood brain barrier into the central nervous system to munch on brain matter, causing things like dementia, incoherence, memory loss and confusion. Fortunately for me, these symptoms would go unnoticed, even by myself, and do not concern me. But, there is a vicious, unbearable consequence that has rocked the core of my being...
To best my chances of recovery, there are significant changes required. A mere three-tiered antibiotic treatment mixed with a vile concoction of herbal tea consumed throughout the day (for 12 months) and a regimen of supplements is not enough. Nay, there is still more I can do to improve my long-term prognosis: dietary management. No dairy, grains, or sugar. Fine. Very well. I begin my life of bacon! Braunschweiger on beef jerky! But wait. Grains...sugar...aren't those in...........beer?
Oh yes, and in abundance, particularly considering alcohol, an ingredient in beer, is like a super sugar. Real doctors and the ones your insurance will pay for agree. Beer is out.
People throw around the word "liberty" a lot these days, especially in politics, to the point it has become diluted. Let's consider what this word actually means, how it pertains to our lives, and also to any political philosophy congruent with a free society. Why not.
Complete liberty, in a strict sense, would mean unrestricted access to our every need, want, and most trivial desire, so much as it doesn't remove any liberty from anyone else. There are two approaches to acquiring this. One could be called Epicurean. (Although Epicurus advocated a simple life, I think that was mostly to avoid servitude to mobsters. Without those, I think he would have emphasized exploiting the finer things enhancing life.) To sum it up: "Pleasure is the beginning and the end of living happily." In other words, knock yourself out. Use our unrestricted access to liberty to fly to Barbados, and, hell, change your mind half-way down, immediately reversing the direction of the plane, all while drinking mohitos that do not cause hangovers (which do not aid liberty). Live life to its fullest.
The other tactic is one that has been tried more often. That would be the Stoic who believes that eliminating need/want/desire brings us closer to complete liberty. In other words, if you don't want to fly to Barbados, or drink mohitos, you are just as free as someone who wanted to and did. Of course, this is also advocated by a great many philosophers. But then, most of those philosophers didn't have access to things like iphones and blogs and motorcycles. And even if they can be admired for their willpower, they probably did it to satisfy their professional need for philosophical consistency. Or, perhaps to satisfy their personal desire for self-righteousness, a slave to vanity, but what do I know. One might say denying the grapes of wrath, and much more, was how one gained rock star status in ancient Rome. I think it's apparent which of these two approaches I prefer.
Anyway, today, most of us practice Stoicism because there is no other choice. We do so by living empty, commercial, vapid lives drenched in reality television and through attempting to silently exploit one another in the big casinos of rigged (all) business and the stock market. We are trapped in Stoicism, this morass of a culture defining our lives for us, of candidates becoming front runners because we are told they are (ahem, Perry). We do what they say, with seemingly no escape as we devolve to zombies.
I would be completely apathetic if not for the single philosopher in the free world other than Jesus who represents humanity, and does so amidst the attacks of the stoics who want us to live the lives they design–the lives that give them freedom at our expense. I am speaking, of course, of Ron Paul, who is just great. I stood at his booth at the State Fair yesterday. History will make note of Ron Paul, or there will be little history to take note of.
"There are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient, with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to the bank and use an ATM -- you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk, instead of checking in at the gate." -Barrack Obama
He goes on to explain that "what we have to do now...is identify where the jobs of the future are going to be...how do we make sure that there's a match between what people are getting trained for and what jobs exist? How do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity...we're on the right track."
[Weep]
Mr. Obama, no, I'm sorry, but you are not on the right track. Millions of businesses, entrepreneurs, and employees are expertly pouring over countless bits of data in order identify need, satisfy that need efficiently, and are willing to take accountability for the results. You and your friends simply do not have the bandwidth for the task you propose. No person or administration does. The nature of the market, of reality, is spontaneous and dynamic. It responds instantly to new discoveries you could never predict. It rewards those who accommodate others best. It demands individual risk and real incentives. Obama, you are advocating the opposite: a command economy where you and your friends dictate the future. All history demonstrates that what you propose can't be done without rampant destruction, slavery, and death, to the degree it is implemented.
Whatever you decide, no matter how clever and well-intentioned, will deprive the market of the resources it needs to accommodate real demand. It will make the economy worse.
Reminds me of The Fifth Element scene in Zorg's office with the priest, Cornelius, debating the business of life.
ZORG Follow me.. Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction. Look at this empty glass.
Zorg pushes the glass with his finger.
ZORG Here it is... peaceful... serene... but if it is...
[Zorg pushes the glass off the table. It shatters on the floor.]
ZORG Destroyed...
[Small individual robots, both free-wheeling and integrated, come zipping out to clean up the mess.]
ZORG ...Look at all these little things... so busy all of a sudden. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet, so full of form and color. So full of..life!
CORNELIUS They are robots!
[A SERVANT comes in pours water in another glass. Zorg tosses a cherry into it.]
ZORG Yes but... by that simple gesture of destruction. I gave work to at least fifty people today. The engineers, the technicians, the mechanics. Fifty people who will be able to feed their children so they can grow up big and strong. Children who will have children of their own, adding to the great cycle of life!
[Cornelius sits in silence.]
ZORG Father, by creating a little destruction, I am, in fact, encouraging life! So, in reality, you and I are in the same business!
CORNELIUS Destroying a glass is one thing..killing people with the weapons you produce is quite another.
ZORG Let me reassure you Father..I will never kill more people in my entire life than religion has killed in the last 2000 years.
[Zorg smiles, holds up the glass and takes a drink. Unfortunately, he chokes on the cherry. Unable to breathe, Zorg starts to panic.]
CORNELIUS (mocking) Where's the robot to pat your back?
[Zorg falls, writhing, on his desk, inadvertently hitting buttons which trigger a slew of little mechanisms. They pop out all over the desk. True chaos reigns. Even a cage appears, holding a Souliman Aktapan, a fat multicolored beastie, PICASSO, who seems surprised to be out in daylight. He licks his half-dead master in thanks.]
Cornelius gets up and walks around the desk.
Zorg motions for help.
CORNELIUS Can I give you a hand?
Cornelius whacks him on the back. The cherry comes flying out. Zorg regains control of himself. GUARDS come running in.
ZORG You saved my life... So, I'm going to spare yours. (to the GUARDS) Throw him out!
The GUARDS throw Cornelius out.
CORNELIUS You are a monster, Zorg!
ZORG (complimented) I know...
(There were a few script changes to the actual scene...)
It seems the difficult fact often forgot is that people cannot be forced to save or help others. We know they do so in abundance when given the chance, but it happens despite the direction of well-intentioned dictators, not because of it. On a more basic level, ask yourself: "Am I helping someone else if forced to do so? Or, is it not myself, but the person commanding me that is actually helping." As the one being helped, "Am I genuinely grateful when the person who is helping me has no other choice?" Finally, "Do I help others more effectively when doing so of my own volition? With the possibility of recognition? With the possibility of profit?" I suspect the answer is yes. But also, "Do I resent the fact that my good and noble actions are not appreciated because the beneficiary knows I had no other choice?"
A command economy is one in which our conscience and dignity is yielded to external planners–we all become stooges, zombie-like characters. Individuals, instead of responding to the needs of neighbors using their own faculties, act on behalf of some false, non-dynamic theory of good. It perpetuates itself in a downward spiral, where accountability is lost, no one can be trusted, and all appeal to one supreme planner. A command economy can only win when everyone is losing (e.g. during a war). There is some solace in the fact that we can know, without the shadow of a doubt, that all coercive economic plans will deprive people of freedom and accomplish less than what would be accomplished otherwise. In this example, Obama's plans would unintentionally prevent the priest from slapping Zorg in the back. Or in the best case scenario, would diminish his incentive for doing so (I know, in this special case it would probably have been best to let Zorg perish–a touch of irony there).
In a larger sense, Obama is using the same logic employed to justify all great economic planners/plans (Mao's Great Leap Forward, Lenin's New Economic Policy, Hitler's Four Year Plan). His argument cannot easily be refuted, because not dictating seems less effective. Any electorate can be seduced by impossible promises–"Vote for me and I'll provide for you" rather than "Vote for me and I'll protect the conditions that allow you to provide for yourselves." It is well known that Democracies are prone to be vulnerable to choosing the former lie over the latter pragmatism. We all want something for nothing, and in large incomprehensible matters, we find it romantic to hope. This notion was clear to our founders, who agreed upon a Constitutional Republic rather than a direct Democracy. Majorities tend to believe a command economy will bring positive change without remembering that the results of the change are always disastrous. Subsequently, the individual will awaken to discover, in his delusion, he voted away what power he had to reverse it.
The problem is not new. It has been with us for ages. The argument against it requires subtlety to communicate, and the value and breadth of that argument requires little short of meditation to comprehend. Fortunately, there is one 19th century French economist who has done well to interpret and explain the economic portion of this greater truth, Mr. Frederick Bastiat. (Yes, I return to Bastiat).
Zorg uses the first part of Bastiat's Broken Window Parable (in his essay What is Seen and What is Not Seen) to justify breaking the glass. He argues it is good for the economy to destroy things, because it puts people to work and gives them purpose. Of this there is universal agreement. A war, for example, puts people to work and gives them purpose.
The disagreement between Zorg and Cornelius lies in what could be accomplished instead of cleaning up the glass, with the same resources. By looking only at what is seen (the robots cleaning the glass and the workers required to build them), and not what is unseen (the good that could otherwise be accomplished with the same energy), the argument is incomplete.
Zorg addresses the unseen with a presumption: "Fifty people will be able to feed their children so they can grow up big and strong. Children who will have children of their own, adding to the great cycle of life!" A well-intentioned, thoughtful, reasonable person might momentarily consider it vaguely plausible that indiscriminately killing as many people as possible could be done with the full consent and force of one's conscience. Of course, Zorg is an insane, murderous psychopath who needs no particular justification to slaughter any number of innocent people, and is using this parable to taunt the poor priest before killing him. To Zorg, the unseen is a population of people whose purpose is not their own, but his–humanity exists to serve his destructive fetishes. These children he speaks of will be his slaves. Cornelius calls him a monster, indicating he disagrees with Zorg's assessment.
The argument against Zorg's requires imagining some purpose more desirable than his own. Obama imagines a population whose lives are dedicated to a higher GDP. Our founders, and those who drafted the U.S. Constitution imagined a country where government didn't usurp the lives of its citizens.
Obama's assumptions demonstrate another popular fallacy: that a strong economy is necessarily evidence of success. This is not necessarily the case. In a dynamic free economy, a slowing would indicate the needs of the people had been met. Less demand would reveal a general reduction in want, which is a positive thing. It would also be a sign of increased self-reliance, something American patriots and writers have championed since the founding of our nation. With a few animals and a large garden, large portions of our population might live successfully, and in perfect happiness, without contributing one dollar to the GDP.
Of course, our economy is not slow because we lack need or want. It is also not slow because we lack resources or talent. It is slow because we lack trust and incentive. Entrepreneurs feel the need to gain Obama's blessing, or be destroyed by the economic favoritism given to their competitors. Business leaders all understand the Broken Window, and hesitate to invest in growth considering the extra risk inherent to a society with a Zorg-like President. We cannot know how far technology might have advanced without the economic destruction caused by Bush's TARP program or Obama's "Stimulus." We cannot know how much prosperity was squandered, or how many lives damaged by these plans. Similarly, we cannot know how many lives would be saved without The Great Leap Forward or Communism in One Country.
We see "radicals" in the Republican party objecting to these plans, but we know they do the same thing when they are in power. They do so because this is what governments do, to the degree they are able. If we are to learn anything from the Fifth Element, it is that Bruce Willis kicks ass, but aside from that, we should be fortified in the complete confidence that the Fifth Element is not government, but something entirely different...
