The first thing Americans of this Church are going to have to do is invigorate the economy, and secure the country for Americans. Stop illegal aliens from crossing in and stop allowing bad legal immigrants. Secure the Christian men and women who make up this nation, and restrict incomers into this land into only thoroughly vetted Christians.

And then Americans are going to need to invigorate the economy, primarily by investing in the space industry, to establish a new lunar frontier, and create a flurry of jobs and gusto in the process. This will be done by withdrawing a large sum of money from the defense industry, and from foreign aid.

Steps

This is going to be focused on above all other things first. To do this, Americans will reach out to their elected representatives at the federal level. We will inform them of our position on the lunar homestead act, and demand investing in the space industry. We will demand an America First agenda.

Under the Trubidity Act, the American Church will encourage the people and our representatives to invest heavily in the space industry to establish a new lunar frontier. This money should be drawn from the defense budget, while keeping a cohesive nuclear arsenal and a minimal yet highly competent standing army. It should also be drawn from the foreign aid we sent to various godless countries, and put back into the American people and her interest.

The United States is funding the war in Israel. Why? The American Church directs its people to strongly advocate for America withdrawing all or nearly all funding from the state of Israel. It should withdraw support from their military endeavors, and almost certainly from the state of it as a whole. This is a war that does not benefit Americans in any meaningful capacity, and the benevolence is false.

Take that money and direct it to the space industry, to establishing a new lunar frontier for Americans to venture to. Create new jobs in the space industry that give us hope, that let us know true freedom is back on the way.

The American Church also directs that the war Ukraine should be closely investigated, and questions should be asked as to American's involvement in it. If America stands to gain nothing in that war, then while our own people starve and die from our own internal wars, Ukraine must be left to fend for itself, at least in far greater regard. This money could aid the space industry and the American people by an astronomic amount.

The money invested in the space industry must not go to the corporations. The American Church directs the government, and our churchgoers to advocate for, to invest the money in small business, in people, and in programs that will fuel jobs for everyday Americans in the space industry. Since the space industry is a massive, and quite literally skyrocketing, one, jobs and economic investment in this realm will yield immeasurable results. The goal will be to establish a new lunar frontier.

That means the money should go to spaceship programs, but specifically spaceship programs that are affordable. The goal is to create a spaceship that is affordable for an average American, along with the tools necessary to homestead on the moon and extract its resources, as well as that of nearby asteroids. Initial projections indicate this may amount to around the area of the price of an average home. It will take a decade to a decade and a half, according to these projections, working as fervently and diligently as possible, for this to be the case.

On top of that, we need to advocate for a Lunar Homestead Act. This needs to be a part of the mission from day one. We want Americans to be able to afford a spaceship and lunar equipment in the next decade and a half. There will be a government subsidized program to assist Americans in this, that will grant Americans a spaceship, or help pay for a large portion of it, along with 40 acres on the moon; for any American who is willing to venture there and improve the land. Such a program will be greatly beneficial for the government, because there are vast and untapped resources on the moon and in near orbit. Americans could harvest them and make themselves and the country rich, contributing to a national economic boom furthermore. This could be done, ambitiously–according to my analysis as President Bishop–in the same time as the bare spaceship; in other words, the equipment that could be fitted to a ship to harvest minerals and other rich lunar/near-orbit resources could be developed in that same period.

I will closely analyze precisely how the money should be spent, and how these resources should be developed.

Indeed, this will make Americans and the country rich. It's in the best interests of the nation to invest in such a program. The nation as a whole will accrue the vast resources, and individual Americans will be the ones harvesting them. We will focus on ensuring that every individual American can reach the stars themselves, and harvest.

Exact Economics

Of course, the question does still arise precisely how much money should be spent. The answer is, however much is necessary.

Deliberate Speech Delivery

Deliberate speech delivery is the crafting of speeches in a deliberate manner. And crafting a structured hierarchical outline or structure built specifically for the purposes of speaking. Then being cognizant of that structure while delivery is taking place and during the execution process. These three steps are extremely significant and are the basis for all types of speech delivery including its deliberate form, which is itself the basis of the other form. Construction. Cognition. And execution. We will first go over construction.

Construction

First, the speech has to be created. The content of a speech must be organized into a hierarchical order and done so in a manner that fosters ease of use and manipulation later. And in a way specifically designed for the dynamic nature of speech. Hierarchical sections should be broken up into their smallest intelligent thought and sorted that way in accordance with the dynamic nature. Break the speech up into their smallest units of intelligible thought and organize them hierarchically that way. A speech has to be organized like this. It fosters quick use and clever manipulation. This paragraph thus far could be hierarchically and dynamically organized like so:

• First, the speech must be created.

- Its content must be organized hierarchically.

- And in a manner that fosters ease of use.

- And manipulation.

- In a way specifically designed for the dynamic nature of speech.

- Hierarchical sections should be broken up.

- Into their smallest intelligible thought.

- And sorted that way.

- Break it up and sort it into their smallest units.

- It has to be done like this.

- It fosters quick use and clever manipulation.

Notice how sentences are broken up into very small units. Sentences are even separated and broken up into smaller units to accomplish this. A speech must be constructed like this.

Cognition

Then the speech has to be in place in the mind of the speaker when it is going to be executed. The speaker has to be cognizant of it. While speaking. The way this is done is by being aware of the hierarchical nature of the speech using the constructed hierarchical outline and the point and place of each part of the speech one is at at every point they are executing it. The fact that the speech is broken up into various very small parts, smaller than you might think, makes this very easy to do since the rapidity of speech will not detract from the quality of understanding the content since it is all very small and easy to handle and move forward through.

The speech content, its hierarchical outline, must be committed to memory. This is a process that must be concentrated on separately. The structure must be intentionally committed to memory.

But when going through and delivering the speech the speaker has to be aware of the entire outline of what they’re saying hierarchically and content-wise, the meaning of it, from the overarching point of the speech down to the section or sections they are on down to smaller sections and down to they very small detail and individual words they are saying at that moment, and of course how it all relates to each other and what they will say next. All of this has to be done. Every part. And it has to be done live, in real time, while speaking.

It is why when constructing speeches, so different from constructing writing, the chunks of the hierarchical construction must be broken up into their smallest intelligible units in such a way that they may seem far smaller than is necessary or overly simplistic. You have to understand that what seems overly simplistic when writing or even mentally constructing an outline with time to consider each item is fundamentally antithetical to how it appears during the live and dynamic nature of speech, and in a way that is irreconcilable for every speaker, from JFK to MLK to Gandhi to the Greek Plato.

The content of a speech during the construction process must be deliberately oversimplified in relation to how it appears during the construction process. Not a single time when speaking will you have this much time to peruse or manipulate the outline. Not when writing one. Nor when mentally putting one together beforehand, when you will have time to pause and consider. No such time is granted when speaking, and this must be taking into consideration. So the content of a speech must be deliberately “over”-simplified to compensate for this effect. Must be deliberately simplified. The difference between the reflective process of construction and the rapidity of speech. It must be deliberately compensated for. In a way that may seem overly so, drastic at the time, but it is not because of the differences. It must be “overly” simplified.

This makes cognition much easier. And not only easier, but possible. Realistically or actually being cognizant of speeches in real time, which is when speech takes place, means being actually fully aware of what is going on. And this can only be done when the content is broken up like this. Then being cognizant of it just means being aware of each of those broken up parts and their meaning and how they all fit together. Being aware of where you’re going next and its meaning. The meaning of the section. And their hierarchical relation.

Execution

Executing the speech just means delivering the content of whatever part you’re on while being aware of its place in the structure and what comes next in the speech and its part in the structure. One just has to train themselves to be able to keep cognizant of its complex structure while delivering its parts. It’s essentially just multitasking.

But there is another large aspect to executing a speech. That is not found in construction or cognition. As we hinted at earlier, speech is an eternal two-way function. Whenever giving a speech there is always feedback from the audience that must be processed and accounted for. Speech should always be deliberately altered during execution depending on feedback from the audience.

There are two types of feedback. Live feedback and discourse-based feedback. Live feedback is that which occurs during monologues. Speakers will be speaking and the audience will sometimes look confused, or enthusiastic, and the speaker needs to perhaps expand upon a certain in more detail, provide an anecdote to make a point sail home, or get to the next one depending on the exact nature of it.

Discourse-based feedback is feedback that occurs in the midst of conversation. An audience asks questions. The speaker may need to reformat his existing hierarchical structure to account for the specific structure of that question. It’s the same essential points with the same structure, so to speak, but it is reformatted.

The alteration process of (of the execution stage of) delivering a speech follows the same process of construction, cognition, and execution. We must construct a new outline, often similar to the previous one, we must be cognizant of it, and then we must execute it with that cognizance we have constructed, while staying alert to the audience for any feedback prompting adjustment.

There is a more advanced version of alteration as well. It involves combining disparate outlines into a single one, parsing out the necessary information from them all to answer a specific question. It is called advanced execution alteration. A speaker may be asked a question whose answer essentially combines information from two (or more) different outlines, and he may combine information from those into a single structure, combining the various points and details into one. But it is not the generation of new ideas or creation of a new structure from scratch, only the reformatting of existing ones.

Pools of related structures can be classified as a single large structure which all answer one big question, and this is why it is possible to rearrange them easily and form them into different structures with their information intact. This is advanced execution alteration, but it is still a form of execution alteration and should be treated and dealt with as such. But its specific type is advanced execution alteration. As its core is very simple. Alter existing speech structures, content to match the question. It is just that the scale of it is slightly larger, in that the structures may be disparate, but they are inherently and necessarily related and form one at their base, so it is still execution alteration and simple in that regard.

And that is how it’s done. Reformatting information from various structures into a single structure to answer one question. Advanced execution alteration.

All of this necessitates a certain level of attention to be paid to the audience. One has to be aware of the audience and what they are doing when giving a speech. When executing it. When monologuing, one has to be aware of the audience’s non-verbal and other feedback, to adjust the speech as necessary, and to do so deliberately. All of this must be done deliberately. The live adjustments to speech content during live feedback must be done deliberately, and the speaker needs to constantly be on guard and paying attention to this and to adjust the speech content deliberately.

He needs to pay attention to the audience deliberately with this intention. And every time feedback is given that prompts adjustment, like confusion, eagerness, boredom, exasperation, willingness to engage further, desire to pause, the speaker needs to immediately and deliberately intentionally adjust the content of the speech, always and every time. And in accordance with the implication of the feedback. The adjustment that should be made. He needs to do so immediately and properly. We’ll say that again. The speaker must deliberately watch the audience while speaking; the deliberate intention of watching for live feedback, and upon noticing any feedback from the audience prompting change, they need to do so immediately, or as immediately as possible, altering the content of the speech immediately.

And when watching the audience, they need to do so with the deliberate intention in mind of watching for feedback. Any and all feedback. And parse it as to whether he needs to adjust his speech or not. The speaker must parse that feedback deliberately, and deliberately think over it as to what the audience could mean and what exactly they might like to have happen to the speech and how they might want to see it altered based on that feedback and deliberate, conscious parsing of it. They must not leave their investigation of the audience up to chance, or simply watch them, but specifically watch the audience for any potential feedback.

He should have the perception of feedback in mind when watching the audience, and specifically have the perception of feedback that indicates any potential alteration to his speech that needs to be made in mind. He needs to do this deliberately, and in a focused way. Again: he needs to do all of this deliberately, and in a focused way, with all of this in mind, watching the audience to do so. And intentionally thinking over it and what their feedback could mean. Watching them intentionally and solely to gain their feedback.

Discourse-based feedback must also be paid attention to. The audience needs to be watched when they are asking a question or making a verbal and auditory remark in the conversation themselves. The speaker must listen to them, watch them for non-verbal cues to better understand them as well, and other cues like tone of voice, and deliberately parse over this information as to what it could possibly mean. Consciously think about what exactly they are saying and how to best address the inquiry and therefore how to best alter existing speech content to do so if any feedback is prompted that indicates so.

That covers the alteration part of speech execution. It is a considerably intricate task, and requires care. And with that covered we’ve covered the entirety of the overview we’d like to give of speech execution. That should warrant applause.

Takeaway

Delivering a speech consists of construction, cognition, and execution. Create it for the purposes of giving a speech with its nuances. Have the structure in mind when delivering in its same inherent form, as constructed. And execute it by delivering it while altering it based off audience feedback, paying attention to them to do so. That is it. That is how to deliver a speech. It is that simple.

Spontaneous Speech Delivery

Spontaneous speech delivery draws upon the principles of deliberate speech delivery to do so in real time, using mere seconds to speak about topics. It’s when you don’t have a pre-constructed mental outline designed for the purposes of speech before speaking about a topic. One must either be generated in real time or content discussed and weaved together loosely but as cohesively as possible.

It follows the same structure: construction, cognition, and execution, but on a smaller scale. The level of familiarity with the subject matter dictates that scale.

There are 3 types of levels of familiarities with a subject.

• Familiar with the subject
• Vaguely familiar with the subject
• Not familiar with the subject

There is a 4th type which has been covered: being familiar with the subject and having an outline for speech committed to memory. That will not be discussed here.

Being familiar with the subject means one has a pool of information on it. Sort of a loose structure of information in one’s head. It allows one to draft outlines extemporaneously by putting together this information in a cohesive way. For example when asked a question one hasn’t prepared for deliberately but is familiar with its matter, they can put together a structure using that information in real time in seconds and execute its delivery, too.

Being vaguely familiar means one can provide intelligent, well-reasoned responses to a question, about a subject, but one cannot provide structured answers in the same way they can do otherwise. They can speak about it well, but it lacks a cohesive structure. The construction and cognition is mostly limited to individual points that follow each other in a somewhat structured way.

Being unfamiliar with a subject means being able to only provide dubious answers or give content that is somewhat intelligent and not structured.

Each of these spontaneous delivery methods requires different techniques. And they should each be covered separately. We will start with general familiarity with the subject.

Structured Spontaneous Speech Delivery

General familiarity requires having a good level of familiarity on the subject. It allows you to craft structured responses to questions and deliver structured content utilizing those pools of information to create an outline in real time. It lacks the same level of polish as doing so in a reflective nature like deliberate speech, but it is still a fully-fledged outline with structure and detail. So you first have to have pools of information of the subject. Which constitutes general familiarity. It is established you have that.

It has a process of construction, cognition and execution.

Construct an outline for the content by piecing together pools of information in your possession to form an outline for the content you wish to deliver. It should have an overarching structure, a thesis, again made possible by the fact that these pools of information in your possession which you are familiar with allows you to piece together connections and themes when put together.

Putting together such an outline in the construction phase must be done so from the existing pools of information you already have committed to memory. The generation of new ideas must not be done here. It cannot be done while also putting together a cohesive outline and structure at the same time. New ideas are too labor-intensive for the mere seconds we have. Although they can happen and should be incorporated if they occur and are applicable, they should not as a rule be implemented or involved in the slightest, because they cannot be reliably replicated or guaranteed. In the formation phase of a structure with material you are familiar with, only create it with material you are already familiar with. That you already know. That you have in your pool of information that is possessed. Simply form it into a structure.

As an aside: generally, sticking to one content structure in spontaneity is best. If you decide you are going to deliver speech in a manner based off general familiarity, do it throughout the entirety of the content. Do not incorporate midway through elements of concepts you are vaguely familiar with. Or else make the entirety of the content from the beginning following the vague familiarity. One of the tenets of excellent speech delivery is structure. It always adds to the cadence and prowess of a speech. Even chaos in a speech should be structured and planned to be truly effective. And a speech that is entirely somewhat structured sounds more structured than a speech that is structured in some parts and semi-structured in other parts. Always stick to one method of spontaneous speech delivery when delivering a piece of content, when delivering a speech.

Then, be cognizant of this outline. When delivering it. Be aware of the entire structure of the content. Where you are. Where you are going. And how the point you are at now fits into the hierarchical structure. Remember the outline you have constructed.

And then execute it. Be aware of the audience and pay attention to them for feedback. And make alterations as necessary. Adjustments can and should be made, and hold the same level of importance and call for diligence as in deliberate speech. Both live and discourse based feedback and adjustments here. Pay attention to the audience. Execute the speech.

That is the essence of this form of spontaneous speech delivery. We call it structured spontaneous speech delivery. It is for subjects with which the speaker is familiar.

Semi-Structured Spontaneous Speech Delivery

Then there is delivering a speech when one is vaguely familiar on the topic. They must construct it, be cognizant of it, and execute it. The difference is that with concepts one is only vaguely familiar with, delivering spontaneous speech is less structured. Coming up with new ideas takes time, and trying to work through various connections and structure thoughts like this is trickier. So you can’t really structure entire outlines spontaneously here. Instead, you are essentially limited to coming up with individual points in a somewhat logical structure and being cognizant of each point as you come up with them.

The main idea will likely form over time as well throughout the delivery process. But the construction, cognition, and execution process takes place over individual points themselves. For this level of familiarity, it is not possible to go higher than that. The points cannot either be structured in a logical order due to the unfamiliarity. Only the inherently coherent nature of thought is there to dictate a level of flow and coherence to it, but nothing that is deliberate or planned or that one could really do deliberately.

That being said, as a result of the fact that the speaker has some familiarity, the end result of the content should be something that is logically ordered and coherent. The speaker must be cognizant of the speech while delivering and execute it the same way, paying attention to the audience and deliberately and immediately making live adjustments as they appear.

Cognition of the speech is mostly limited to the point one is on and has covered before, and perhaps vague ideas or more clear ideas if applicable about where to head. And of course this applies to construction as well. During execution one must be cognizant of this.

We call this semi-structured spontaneous speech delivery, in accordance with the fact that the content follows a semi-structured layout with reasoned and intelligent answers established individually and spontaneously.

Unstructured Spontaneous Speech Delivery

This has to do with topics the speaker is unfamiliar with. Does not even possess a vague familiarity with. It is difficult to speak intelligently about topics like these. The speaker can put together somewhat intelligent, somewhat reasoned responses that generally follow a bare structure or very little or even no structure.

It follows a process of construction, creation, and execution. The speaker must make connections between what he does know about the topic, construct meaningful content, be cognizant of it, and execute it. The construction of new information is limited to individual points that are somewhat intelligent. With little ideas on where to go next and the overall idea of the speech.

The end result of this process is a speech lacking much if any structure with somewhat intelligent content. It does, however, follow the same structure, and to emphasize again during the execution attention must be paid to the audience and alterations made to the content as a result of feedback, live and discourse-based.

This is called unstructured spontaneous speech delivery. It is a process lacking in structure and overall cohesion, but it can indeed be done if desired. Certainly it can be dutifully attempted to be performed as splendidly as possible.

Takeaway

Delivering spontaneous speech consists of multiple different formats each with their own styles and demands. They all follow the same process of construction, cognition, and execution, but each one going down the list of the levels of familiarity get smaller in scope and scale in that construction and other processes. A speech should always be made to be as structured as possible, which is why knowledge and research is valuable. In essence, delivering a spontaneous speech requires pooling together the information one has and utilizing it to create a structure which can be executed, that is either large and encompasses a full and creative idea or branches through multiple different points ordered as logically as possible. And all of this is done in real time, dynamically. Spontaneous speech delivery is a powerful tool.

Overall Takeaway

We have covered the history of speech, its purpose, and the process of deliberate and spontaneous speech delivery. This has been a wonderful guide that you should utilize if you wish to craft elegant and impressive speeches. Of course there are more details that you might like to learn by diving into our workshop. But in a very information-packed and already bright enough nutshell, this is how it’s done. Following this well lead to excellently-crafted, beautiful speeches. Feel free to follow this alone if you like. It will lead to success.

It was on one such day that Surreal decided to take change to effectively regulate the country himself.

He strolled down to city hall and opined about the changes necessary in the city, emblematic of those in the country. Only this was no ordinary opinion.

The plan to fix the leftists and their cohorts is arduous. Ahead is an initiative against the radical, progressive left, an initiative to restore America whose enemies include all others who refuse to appropriately address the issue. So long live that mission. We deserve to gain what's before us, and through any means to fulfill this act, we need to use them; whatever is necessary. Let that be our case.

Let's look at the facts. My entire plan is based on what we currently know about the situation, what can plausibly be done with the materials we have and can gain. It's a very prudent, very efficient plan. And it will work. What it lacks is the knowledge of what we could do if we could gain materials we didn't know we could gain, use knowledge of the situation we don't yet know or understand we can know, and do things we don't now understand to be possible, but that are. Those are crucial pieces of the puzzle, and if we let those come to us by accident it'll be a wonder why we won't move swiftly. What if I could somehow incorporate that into the picture, and use things to my aid that I didn't even predict could be the case, that I don't currently know to be so, but that could be, if I could know? If I could do that, I could more so drastically assist the Christian people in the U.S., so that we'll be powerful beyond limit, so that it could be done in a far more eloquent arrangement, one congruently so eloquent it's something that I can't conceive of, but what if I could conceive of it likewise?

Let's take a look at Donald Trump, a man who has lied to the American people, betrayed his constituents via promises of America First but instead plays the same drab vinyls that resulted and that result in such a decrepit nation and its state of affairs. Of course I say this as a conservative, and one who acknowledges or at least acknowledged his utility, but we now understand what really is going on. He's not putting America first. Maybe we can appeal to him but I think that's beyond unlikely; he's shown his loyalty. What can we do? What if we were to appeal to J.D. Vance instead and voice our exact concerns, that we want America first to come to fruition, that we despise Trump's soft stance on the establishment and the leftists when he promised to be harsh; and if Vance, using whatever powers he has as Vice President and the personal power of appealing and persuading the President, amends these issues and rights the country in a powerful degree, we will vote for him in the 2028 election without hesitation. A message like that could prompt him to disobey Trump for the greater good of the country and the constituents. Now, would that work? No. But, could something like that (not having anything to do with Trump or Vance, I just mean something as preposterous as that, regarding any political maneuver intent on American change) work but I don't believe or know it to be possible? Yes, I'm saying that must be the case if the facts I laid beforehand are true, which they by divine rule ought to be so, and therefore are, so it is the case; there must be something so auspicious like that which we can do, and promptly set the country restoratively correct, without errors of judgment intact.

What is it?

First, it seems prudent to point out the terrible trajectory the nation is headed toward. I mean the violent one. I thought at one point talk of civil war as inflammatory or at least exaggerated, but now it's quite clearly not so. If we aren't careful there A) could be a genuine armed civil war among the people, and B) by some metrics, and according to some reasonable thought, we are already in a civil war, albeit in the early stages. This is a decidedly relevant factor.

When well-articulated and conducted, appealing to the correct select group(s) (or selectorates/electorate), unconventional acts or approaches can be initiated successfully, receiving the desired effect, as showcased by the election of Donald Trump. He didn't implement the policies he proposed in totality in his first term, and certainly not now in the second, altogether not at all and therefore is a phony, but did showcase that he could get elected in decidedly unconventional ways through ruthlessly efficient, decisive approaches that go beyond the political norm.

After the objective analysis is complete, enter phase two of the reasoning process. This is where a very stringent, extremely controlled utilization of certain subjective tools should be implemented, but still heavily under the control of objective analysis. The ability of careful reasoning to handle novel situations is triumphant; however, its biggest weaknesses is precisely the fact that it deals with novelty by reasoning about it using products that are themselves novel. It is therefore susceptible to taking certain leaps that should not have been taken, or finding patterns that were not present in the original data, commonly derived or not. A very clever use of subjective weight and heuristics can counter this. One needs to be careful to keep it under the deliberate control of objective weighting so as to not reap the opposite weakness of deriving conclusions from data that fails to adapt.

Does the conclusion feel like it is proper? Does it align with the intended end? Does it capture the gravity of the situation? There may be emotions at play, and quite often these emotions can, utilized carefully, demonstrate immense utility. Do they, when articulated carefully to them, satiate the wishes of them? If not, perhaps reconsidering the entire conclusion might be correct. At minimum, one should understand why that is, or why not.

The subjective element is very important. Now that the importance of objectivity has been established, the subjective element can be given more attention. Reasoning is a process that heavily involves subjectivity. The objective analysis might be diluted by forming data that does not exist, reasoning objectively about things that cannot be done because there is no evidence to support it. Subjectivity bypasses this by giving data that is rapidly formed from existing pools of knowledge. The one engaging in the reasoning process must use subjectivity to make a decision. And it must be a crucial element.

Two crucial elements are the admission of uncertainty and the primacy of the objective. Roadblocks will occur during the execution of reasoning. Having a well-defined objective that the reasoner is confident they can achieve will assist them. The admission of uncertainty prevents leaps of dull faith.

It's important to understand the history of reasoning when understanding reasoning. Humanity evolved reasoning faculties under conditions that allowed some processes to emerge, but not necessarily the most effective processes.

The first step of independence, of originality, is ironic. It is admitting that you aren't original. Let me unpack that.

The first step is to admit what you don't know, or what you lack in terms of ability. If you want to figure out what you want, first figure out what you don't want. Or if you want to come up with an opinion that is your own, admit what you don't know. Let's say I'm curious about politics, and I want to know what's going on in my city, or with the Trump administration. The first thing I'm going to do is assess how much I know. I'm going to say I know this about Trump, this about what he's done, and this is what I base that information off of. I'm going to say I don't know anything else besides that, like what he's done recently.

This is important because very often when I see people make decisions, they'll base it on things that are baseless or illusory. If I ask people sometimes why they make a decision, or why they've done something, very often I will get something touted by other people, which is often itself mistaken, which they no less have not closely analyzed to determine whether they agree with it, and often cannot appropriately remember. If you are to prod people in this capacity, you can get them to admit that sometimes. They may reply with something to the effect of, "I actually never understood why that was, I just heard other people say that and decided to, with immense stupidity, allow their decision to dominate my self."

Acknowledging where a decision comes from: that is the key. If you want to form an opinion that's political, then you need to assess what you know and are certain that you know.

Then, admit what you don't know. Once you assess what you do know about a situation, understand that. The rest you need to either figure out by immersing yourself more in the situation, or you need to engage with what you have. If I know that I don't know about what Trump's done recently, I'm not going to form an opinion on that. I'm instead going to form an opinion from what I do know, what he's done in the past. When I speak of my opinion, I'm going to make that clear. I'm going to emphasize that this is my opinion of the President in the past, yet I cannot speak as to what he has done recently, except for understanding that he's likely to continue doing similar things to what he's done in the past.

To be sure, we must admit what we don't know or what we can't do so that we can gain that knowledge or ability. It's a good idea to start out with what you do know and have, and use that, because it is very often far more effective than you might have thought sometimes. Then, the next step is to gain those things which you need to know, or want to be able to do. That requires immersion, practice, and engagement. Then you will have an opinion that is not only accurate, but indeed robust.

Jesus tells us we are to carry out his will, and the will of the Father. God sent us to carry his will. Therefore, when you are figuring out what you want, it is helpful to know that I do not only act on my behalf, but on behalf of the one who sent me. God sent all of us to carry out his will.

I can expand, if I like, on more abstract and philosophical points about the nature of The Civic Dividend and economics here, but I'll try to apply it as practically as I can. Human beings were originally in a "state of nature." Before we formed governments, before we had societies, we were in a state of nature. We were all "equal" in this state, in the sense that everybody had equal right to the fruits of the Earth. We were equal in an altruistic and fundamental sense. The fruits of the Earth were abundant, and all had equal right to them. Anybody had the right to pick an apple off a tree and eat it; that apple belonged to no one, because apples were plentiful, and picking a single one that nobody had laid claim to did not detract anyone else in that natural state from eating other apples.

But that doesn't exist now. There are not really any apples growing off of trees. Long ago, in this natural state, perhaps a man would go to a tree, eat an apple, and lie on the ground, surviving just from the natural resources of the Earth. But this isn't so simple today, because the resources of the Earth have been mostly picked. There are no apples growing off of trees the same way, naturally; they have all been picked, and people in large companies, in businesses, or individual themselves control all the resources. The abundant fruits of the Earth that allow for natural survival have been harvested and used up. This isn't natural. It goes against the fundamental law of nature.

Since today you cannot survive in the natural state like man did by going around and picking apples of trees because those resources have been artificially taken, things are unnatural. Man, people, have a right to take the resources of the Earth that they need to survive, or that they need to perform some greater purpose, but not to take any more than they need. Society as a whole, through various means has taken the natural resources of the Earth, yet they cannot do so in a manner that prevents natural law: in other words, taking resources more than they need that obstructs the equal state of nature where there are plentiful resources for all. Creating a world where the balance of natural, plentiful resources has shifted. You cannot take more apples that stop the plentiful state of nature's fruit, and other people from equally using it.

So, society has taken too much in this sense. Taken more resources from the state of nature that would allow all other people to plentifully use them. To resolve this, they need to give some of those resources back so that there is enough in the common, natural supply for all people to use freely.

To be clear, people can own many resources or apples. Private property is fundamental to human progress. But the state of nature demands that you do not accrue more private property or resources than you need, or that would prohibit others from benefitting from nature's fruit. To give a simple example, if the Earth had 10 people and 100 apples, then if a man took one apple, that is fine. If he takes 10, that is fine; those are all his apples, that no one can now touch since he took them, via work. But if he takes 50 apples, that is against the natural law, since he does not need 50 apples, and prevents the public from benefitting from nature's fruit, the plentiful apples.

Let me put it like this and connect it to my practical argument earlier. In the state of nature, man could eat apples off trees forever, and survive just like that. Yet this did not compel man to be stagnant. Now, it is true: there were other worries in the state of nature. It was certainly not idyllic. There were threats, human and animal. Lions and tigers and tribes, snakes and scorpions and cold. But man could eat apples of trees and have unlimited natural resources that belonged to all people equally: what I mean by that is simply that all people are free to take all the resources they need, they belong to no one, as long as they don't take more than they need or that would prevent others from using resources they need, which is plenty, since nature is plentiful.

Thinking that The Civic Dividend will stunt human incentive is like saying apples should not grow off trees, because man will get lazy and not work. But it's not true. In the state of nature, there were plenty of trees with unlimited apples, but man did not get excessively lazy. They built civilization, and created skyscrapers, cities, and eventually iPhones. You may argue that is in part because although resources were plentiful back then, life was much harsher in other ways, and thatis what motivated people. But life is still plenty harsh today to warrant the same circumstances.

In the state of nature, people were indeed motivated by other harsh forces than the plentiful natural resources. There were snakes and lions and tigers. That is already sufficient force to compel man to not be lazy. Believe me, if you were in state of nature thousands of years or eons of time ago, the abundance of apples would not allow you to be lazy when the threat of death lay in every bush along with the chance of gold.

It's the same today. Life is harsh in many same ways. We may not fear snakes and tribes killing us with spears, although some people do, but we still fear many reasonable things. There are still many threats. Trying to say that we need to motivate people to work and not be lazy by prohibiting access to the natural resources that all mankind is entitled to ignores the reality that people are motivated already by very terrifying and horrific forces still today. There is war in many places today: disease, illness, and corruption. And in places where there is not, people fear that coming to them. People have enough disaster in the world already to be motivated. They do not need to be excessively motivated on top of that by barring access to the state of natural resources mankind is entitled to.

It is, again, like saying that eons ago, in the state of nature, that apples should not have grown on trees, because man would get lazy at having unlimited apples. Man was afraid of snakes and war. And today, we are still afraid and motivated enough by snakes and war, even if those snakes have taken a different form, and the wars fought with different and more powerful weapons. Trying to motivate people like this is unnatural. It violates the fundamental law of nature in two ways. 1) By barring people from access to the natural resources all mankind are equally entitled to because of nature's plenty and freedom, by society having removed in various ways those natural resources from the common grasp, and 2) by attempting to motivate people in an unnatural way, with excessive forces beyond the natural ones that are sufficiently horrific and incentivizing enough; which also degrades the quality of human nature by prescribing a belief that humans should be compelled primarily by fear rather than desire for something greater, than goodness. It is one thing for a snake to bite you; at least it is a snake, and terrifying as that may be you know it did not sit down and calmly think of a way to hurt you. But when humanity itself demeans people by intentionally pushing onto them a belief that think they are nothing more than pack animals to be coerced, this creates a type of fear that does not spur action and greatness, it locks people into a cage and only creates darkness. In both ways, this is unnatural, and wrong.

That is why I am against it. That's why these forays into freedom from speech to work proves me correct.

That's precisely it. Since all the natural resources of the Earth have been mostly harvested from their natural state, that same principle of direct apples of trees no longer exists. This breaks the natural law. In order to restore it, you need to return the abundant state of resources that all people have access to. That's essentially The Civic Dividend. You are not giving people unlimited money; that would potentially halt progress. You are giving people a bare minimum of natural resources that mankind has right to, as in the state of nature. Apples were plentiful, but still had to be built into gardens and so forth to be great. The Civic Dividend gives people those plentiful apples, but they will be motivated to turn those apples into gardens, and to not get bit by snakes. This doesn't demean mankind by telling them that they are nothing more than pack animal to be coerced, and inflict unnecessary human suffering where motivation is already plentiful enough. And it restores the natural balance. People have access to natural resources of the Earth, so when society has harvested them like we have, we need to restore that balance of apples; plentiful, and to be cultivated. That is The Civic Dividend. Fundamentally, you have no right to deny people The Civic Dividend, just as you have no right to take more apples than you need. You cannot take the apples of the earth, then deny them to people and call them lazy for demanding them. The Civic Dividend is just giving people the fundamental apples they have a right to since they've been taken from the state of nature where they already existed. People seem to forget that nature is abundant with natural resources. And that in nature, all people have equal right to them. Now that those resources are harvested, that principle still applies, and those resources still exist; it is simply giving people the resources that already exist that by birthright they have equal claim to that which they need.

The argument against The Civic Dividend due to scarcity is silly! Because it's sort of like saying if we gave everybody apples, we would run out of apples, because there'd be nobody to make them. But that's ridiculous! Nature has more apples than man could ever want! Apples grow plentifully off of trees, and there are far more apples than man could eat, taking only what each person needs. People took the natural apples that existed, in some cases perhaps hoarded them more than they needed, and now some say they cannot give a reasonable portion back because if they did so, there would be no one to make apples. But you stole unlimited apples which are already plentiful enough. It is not a scarcity issue because there is more than enough apples for people to survive already in nature. By hoarding them, and calling them your own, you are ignoring that they existed not in scarcity but in plenty.

The Civic Dividend would not create a scarcity issue because there is more than enough apples in nature to go around, and the money that provides it is representative of the natural resources/apples that have been harvested. Money is just representative of work, of resources that have been harvested. And as a result, since there are enough natural resources for everyone to live, giving people The Civic Dividend would just give people what is in abundance, which there can be no scarcity of. Money is representative of apples, and in nature there are enough apples for all to go around. Mankind cannot take apples for himself in hoards, then deny them to other parts of mankind, saying they are scarce. They are not.

I'll reiterate, there is nothing wrong with people having lots of apples. But you cannot hoard them. People can take more apples than they need that day. This is called money. A store of work. That's what money is, it is a store of work. There is nothing wrong with people having lots of money; this is actually extremely good. But you cannot take more apples, more money, than you need, from the common state of nature. People have a right to own what they worked for, for it to be theirs and theirs alone. Private property is a good thing, and being rich is good. But you cannot take more than you need.

You cannot hoard apples. You can take what you need to eat, or to fulfill some nobler purpose. If you take an apple and eat it, good. Take one and save it for tomorrow, good. You can also take 50 apples with the intention to start a garden. That's good. Hell, take a million apples and start a lovely garden. It's yours. But you cannot take apples without reason. The resources of the Earth, from oil to wheat to ore, belong to everybody, and can be taken by everybody–including in rich amounts, if they take them for a noble and good purpose. But when you take all the apples of the Earth, all the oil of the Earth, all the ores of the Earth, represent it with money, then deny people access to those apples, oil, and ore by claim of scarcity, that is mistaken. Those resources are not scarce; there was enough for everybody to use, taking only what they need, or need to fulfill a greater purpose, and left enough for the rest to use. Which people can do, since nature is plentiful with oil, ore, and what, and there is enough for everybody for all noble and good purposes. Being rich and owning property is a good thing, but taking more than you need, and taking more that does leave enough for the rest of mankind, then denying them that thing where there was originally enough, is mistaken. The Civic Dividend is not some welfare system, nor some tool for lazy people. A man is not lazy for eating an apple that grows off of a tree in nature.

On the other hand, you could argue against me. You could argue that there is still that plentiful state of nature today. Jobs are plentiful. While finding an ideal job might be difficult, jobs in general are still plentiful, like apples and oil in nature. You could also argue that even picking apples in nature is, while they are plentiful, still difficult in true nature. Apples trees are rare. They exist, and when you find them there are often many, but in true nature there are many trees. You have to find an apple tree, and if it was true nature you might have to learn apples are good to eat and not poisonous, which could take some skill, and so on. In nature, you might roam around and find trees with no fruit. You might find nuts, but have to soak them to eat them. You might find berries, but might have to ensure they are not poisonous. Or a squirrel, but have to set a trap or craft and aim a spear to eat it, then build a fire to cook it. Yes, nature is plentiful, but it is still not perhaps as simple as just picking easy apples off of trees. Perhaps that plenty of nature remains today in the form of the ubiquity of jobs. Yes, some people might work jobs they don't like, but maybe this prompts them to pursue better jobs; and at any rate, this is still like my nature argument where in a state of it, finding apples and nuts is a bit difficult, even if plentiful in general. In that sense, giving people The Civic Dividend might be like handing out apples to people. Not apples that have been taken in hoards, but just like a group of people, let's say, gathering apples and handing them out to others. There's nothing wrong with that if they want to do that, but forcing that as a kind of government mandate might be incorrect. I certainly wasn't arguing that in a state of nature someone should go around handing apples. Perhaps just getting a job is the same thing as finding an apple. They are, at least in theory and in proper environments, plentiful, and take some reasonable yet still attainable difficult, don't they?

So perhaps I'm mistaken in viewing The Civic Dividend as a good thing. As for people being motivated by the desire to work for good rather than fear of poverty, that perhaps might have been overzealous. Maybe a better metaphor would have been the difference between forcing people to work, i.e. slavery, versus what we do in modern capitalist or capitalist-esque systems, which is letting people work whenever and wherever they want, when work is plentiful, provided you are willing.

I'm kind of, in reading certain notable and informative texts, persuaded by this, and for a good reason. Maybe not forcing The Civic Dividend as a government program would lead to more genuine support for people, anyway. If people are allowed to help those they wish and not forced to pay welfare, maybe private individuals themselves would feel more compelled to help those in need and do more than a impersonal government body can, and do so far more effectively, on a nuanced case-level.

In that sense, I've perhaps changed my mind. I think I may be against The Civic Dividend after all if maybe the state of nature and modern jobs resemble each other in plenty but slight necessity of search. And if not forcing welfare prompts private individuals to look out for each other more effectively, anyhow. The same argument about the goodness of human nature can be applied to that dynamic, instead of forcing people to do so, especially in the modern world has plentiful resources, too, in the same way offered to the public.

Does it? It seems so, actually. So that's why I say this. Yet the sources below indicate The Civic Dividend has achieved success in certain areas? Granted, none of these seem to be widespread, total adoption of The Civic Dividend but limited to more specific cases like those facing unemployment to replacing benefits or certain families or villages. It may be different from giving everybody at large The Civic Dividend. Some people think that services like The Civic Dividend or benefits should only be reserved for those facing genuine need, who are trying their best but fall on hard times, and are trying to get out of it earnestly. That's what it's for. This makes sure people who do really need it and who contribute to that system–thereby a priori enabling its existence–actually have it when they need it. This makes sense. I think it can make more sense than giving The Civic Dividend out endlessly. However, to be sure, if there is more data than what I've seen, or more insight to be derived from it, let me gain it.

–-

I get it. If you want to stick with the state of nature argument, the more accurate analogy would be this, what have now. In the state of nature, apples existed in plenty and people picked them. Now, in this state, people decided to agree to form a government. This government went around and collected apples off the trees and formed them into orchards. Now the people can no longer go around in nature and pick apples off trees to live: the plentiful state of the commons has been stolen, violating the law of it.

Now, this recently elected government (from this ended state of nature) says that it will allow you to work on its orchards to make up for having taken all the apples. It says that this is still acceptable, because it took the apples only for a nobler purpose: to create an orchard which produces more apples and which it can use to create jobs. And it now offers those jobs, it argues, in equal plenty. What's wrong with this argument?

It's as you said, I think. It creates an unnatural barrier for the state of nature's resources. Nature was indeed indifferent. The apple off the tree, or the berries on the bush cared not who you were, and with any hand you could reach out and pick them. This new government is not the same. You can not freely go around and pick apples, but must pick and tend to the apples on the government's terms, whenever they wish for you to do so. This distorts the state. No matter how equal man thinks he makes it, it is not the true indifference that creates nature's plentiful state. Part of nature's plenty is its pure indifference. Any human oversight as to how the resources can be gained create this effect. The entire system of jobs equaling nature's apples collapses.

–-

Continuing, nature's law dictates the following. There were abundant apples growing off of trees in nature, more than enough for everyone. The people in this world then agree to form a government, at last. They direct this government to pick the apples off of trees and create orchards, so that the people as a whole in the society may profit from its plenty more efficiently. Yet, as stated, now the people can no longer go about and pick the apples freely as they used to. They have all been picked, and formed into an orchard.

The government, in order to abide by nature's law, should provide a limited supply of those apples to people, roughly equal to what a normal person would be reasonably assumed to benefit from by dutifully attending to the fruits of nature. In other words, the government in this world has picked the apples that people had access to, so they need to provide a small amount of apples back that a normal person would be able to pick. This restores nature's balance.

Creating orchards and jobs is fine, but the counter-argument seemed to almost assume that jobs were a product of government. Jobs have always existed, even in the state of nature. A man could start a garden, and then, if someone agreed, have that person work on it for a reasonable deal. But that person had the option of going out into nature and picking their own apples off of trees instead. They were abundant. Saying that the government provides jobs instead of natural apples is silly! Because jobs always and already existed in nature. The government has not traded one thing for something else. They've just removed one thing, and claim the other thing is still there, so it's equal. The argument is fallacious in a number of avenues.

Money is representative of resources and work. If the government collects apples that belonged to the commons such that they can no longer be accessed when the people own them, then those resources that people would have had access to belong to them. Now, it is true that money is a complex thing. I should define it more accurately. What is money exactly? Is it a store of resources, of resources and work, or or of work? Property, in natural law, is defined as when man mixes with labor with the environment. Money is a form of property, and is representative of property, is it not? Money is usually defined as work, as representative of work. In this context, money is probably representative of that same thing. An apple that grows off of a tree in this state is not worth anything. It is worth $0, because an apple growing off a tree is no use to anybody, to quote Locke. The minute someone picks the apple, let's say that's worth $5. The action of picking the apple from the tree was worth $5. Is the apple also worth $5? It may be worth some amount close to that.

At any rate, the government has picked all the apples, but now the people cannot pick them themselves, violating nature's law. The question is, because this will help me rectify it exactly, is that which should be restored the apples themselves, or the picking of the apples? In other words, if money is representative not of resources, but of the harvesting of natural resources, then the government does not owe handing out apples to people, but offering apples that can be freely harvested to people. But this runs into the same issue, because the government now has to decide how to offer an apple to harvest to someone. It's for this reason and others the government should give the result of picking those apples to the people, in the form of its representation: money. Let me know if this is making sense so far.

The other reason that this is the case also hinges heavily on one of the opposition's core tenets to rebut me. The opposition typically says The Civic Dividend is a bad idea because work is inherently valuable, it provides dignity. But under a closer analysis, it is this very tenet which demands a government that takes apples from the common supply such that they can no longer be freely picked provide the result of picking those apples to the people. Why? Because if it's true that genuine work provides dignity, then this government has not only stolen apples from the people, but they have also stolen the people's work. A man can no longer perform the dignified and fulfilling action of going into nature and of his own accord and risk picking an apple. This is true work, because it is done of his own free will, by an indifferent judge: nature. Now, with the new government, the man has to ask this government to work on the orchard, and he cannot perform the same dignified work, because no matter how generous the employer he must work on their terms. Unlike nature which had jobs (given by humans, indeed), he has no choice but to work on the terms of this government. If he disagrees with any terms, no matter how generous, he cannot go into nature and pick apples and take his own risks, performing work that is genuinely dignified because it is of a man's free will and without oversight. This government has not only stolen apples from the people, they've also stolen the fulfillment of picking those apples from the people.

The only way to balance that is to provide the receipt of both those apples and the fulfillment of picking them, which is that work's representation; in this case, money. If my opposition believes work is inherently valuable, then they are wrong to think The Civic Dividend denies people the fulfillment of work. On the contrary, it gives people the work that was taken from them, and the truly dignified form of work where nature is the only employer, not any man. It's important for my opposition to remember that this is what existed in the state of nature, not the other way around, and that that is what work, in its most fundamental state, really is: where you have all choice to work. Being compelled to work is not dignified, let the opposition remember. The Civic Dividend is not denying the fulfillment of work. On the contrary, it is giving the people representation of the fulfillment of the work that existed in nature being taken from them. Because work is fulfilling, the government picking the apples also owes the people the fulfillment of picking them. This is central to a true understanding of work's dignity.

There's more I need to address to be unassailable. For one, I need to stress that there is no longer any commons. There is longer any natural state of resources, freely available to the public. There used to be, including here in America. There were vast lands of untapped woodlands, by us, at any rate; where people could quite literally go out and pick apples off of trees to survive. Is this correct? I could be wrong. I'm talking about the "Wild West" but more generally that in early America there were entire states and mega-states completely unpopulated, whose property belonged to no one rather than the people at large, where it was not being put to any use. If you didn't like the jobs available to you in your state, perhaps you could argue your state still owes you a share of the apples which it took, and the fulfillment of picking them. But even beyond that, to save us some time now in arguing, you could at least go to that uncharted land and pick your own apples, which indeed many people did. You cannot do that now. First of all, I am suspicious of the argument that even in that historical land a state can deny you that share and its fulfillment, because you should not have to consider entirely different states if a sufficiently large portion of a united commons has been picked such that taking from the common pool is not possible. I'm suspicious of that, too, and not saying that even that former scenario was acceptable. But, even allowing for that for a moment, you could at least go out in the commons and do your thing. People did. You can't do that now. Even if we allow for the counter of "Well, there are always other commons," that doesn't hold, because now there are no longer. That's even if we allow that counter, which I will likely rebut soon. But even if I don't, it doesn't hold because the commons no longer exist.

–-

That one line is beautiful. A job that's promised is not an equal replacement, because "a job is conditional on the permission of an employer, whereas the commons offered unconditional, sovereign access to the means of life." The sin is twofold: theft of property and theft of fulfillment of using that property.

I'm right to not give them an inch, lest they take a mile! Even taking the commons in early America and saying there are more 1000 miles away is unacceptable, because that imposes an unnatural burden of work on the person. In nature, you did not have to go 1000 miles to find an apple off a tree. You may have had to walk a bit, but not that far. Even arguing there were a commons, and there are no longer today is an incorrect understanding, at least in the context of early America and similar contexts. The minute you completely use the resources of a reasonably large portion or body of the commons, such that moving to another portion is an unnaturally large amount of work, you have stolen the resources from everybody to which they originally belonged, as well as the fulfillment of harvesting those resources. It's not that the commons used to exist in America and they don't anymore, so now we need to do something. That argument never held any weight and never will, because forcing people to travel that far because of resources that were taken from them in the first place is unacceptable.

The commons have been taken, and there are no more. There haven't been commons for a very long time, certainly not, in many cases, even in the 19th century.

Now, the "you could go someplace else" argument does hold some weight in certain contexts. But you have to be precise. It's like: if you live in Virginia, and you decide you want to go into nature and work yourself, you should not have to all the way to Montana; that is unnatural and there in violation. The government must provide you with the fulfillment of work they've taken from you.

But, there is a historical parallel on this continent that works with a civilization being established and going someplace else that makes sense. Take the very first civilizations that settled in America. Plymouth, correct? Plymouth was a small colony on the East of America. This colony, this little village, like the other early ones was, as I recall, by itself. A lonely village consisting of a single town in a genuinely barren and untapped land. Yes, not completely untapped, there were people there, but let's just simplify the metaphor slightly for the sake of honoring the opposition's concerns. Other people can contribute to the full picture momentarily. Regardless, the picture still holds true in the matter at hand.

If you were a villager on Plymouth, you were for all intents and purposes surrounded literally by barren land. It was just a few feet from you. If you disagreed with the government of Plymouth or its job opportunities, you could just walk out into nature and do as you wished, picking apples off trees and harvesting its equal resources. Yes, you would be taking a very big risk, but you could do it. You had that opportunity. Some people may have even done so. I can't recall the exact details: Grokipedia says that the colony encountered "territorial conflicts as colonial expansion encroached on native lands," (emphasis added) indicating that people did go and expand the colony, and potentially go and pick their own apples from nature as work, with no government contract or provider to bargain with. Regardless, the point remains: you could go out into nature on the colony of Plymouth, and pick your own apples. If the colony picked all the apples within that small block of land, it'd be really silly to argue they owe you what they took from the commons, because there are far more commons just within walking distance.

Now, take it up to very early America, and the opposing distance argument may have some weight. If you live in Virginia, and you have to walk to a very Western part of Virginia to access the commons, that's a bit of a foot movement, but it's still reasonable that the government or anyone else has not unnecessarily taken the resources of nature. If you have to talk to the territory west of Virginia, completely outside of the state, that's a bigger movement, and so you have a little more argument that nature's bounty has been unduly reaped, but it's still somewhat reasonable.

Fast forward to the day of the Homestead Act, and the argument fails. You should not have to go from Virginia to Montana to access the commons that the government has taken from everybody. That's a completely unnatural movement to pick the world's plentiful fruit. And now fast forward to today, and there are no commons left. The argument already vanished due to distance in the 19th century, at least for many people who lived far from the West. Now, it's not only demolished, it's completely eviscerated. There are no commons, and so the natural resources that belong to everybody in the state of nature, and the fulfillment that comes from freely and without human arbiter harvesting them no longer exists. This very continent and what would become this nation was founded on Puritans who believed in their freedom so much they sailed across the Ocean and settled the wilderness to express themselves and their religion without oversight. And now, would we deny ourselves the ability to live freely and work as in nature, with the dignity work provides? The only solution is to give people the representation of the commons that has been harvested and the fulfillment that comes from harvesting it, which is the reasonable amount of money a man would expect to derive from nature. This is why it is The Civic Dividend, and not some welfare. It is a small amount of money that equates to the apples one would harvest, and the pleasure one would derive from harvesting those apples of their own free will, risk, and boldness.

This still gives people the ability to decide how to spend that money. If they spend it unwisely, they may still die. They need to decide as well on how to spend it, which is the pleasure they are owed since deciding how to spend money is pleasurable; since the apples they would have liked to take have been picked. Money is not itself worth anything, even if it represents the apple in the hand that is worthwhile. They must figure out how to bargain or use it to acquire the apple in hand, which equals nature's plenty of apples.

Furthermore, the people still undergo some labor upon the environment in this setup. The people must hold the government accountable in ensuring that they keep their end of the bargain and use the apples responsibly and in accordance with the fundamental law of nature. Given the history of government, this is no easy task, and every man in a government contributes to it, so they are owed by virtue of that work its fruits: the money the government is allowed to secure from profiting off nature's bounty in man's place. Is it not true that people forming a contract with government, which every citizen in a nation does, and delegating certain responsibilities to the government exerts effort: by forming a government so, one large and capable enough of harvesting any apples, the people exert dutiful and meaningful work, the fruits of which that the government assumes by harvesting such resources must be given in reasonable proportion back to those whose effort has made their harvesting possible.

–-

But how would I respond to critiques of the argument? They would be viscous, many of them rejecting the notion of The Civic Dividend before even hearing its legitimate case. I can try to reframe it by calling it something else, but that's only a superficial fix, although it could be part of it. The opposition will be fundamentally opposed, perhaps irreconcilably so, to any policy that proposes anything that resembles to them a "handout," even if this is quite literally the opposite of a handout, but simply acknowledging the law of nature over natural resources and the fulfillment of harvesting them.

They would be opposed to it, and again I'm not saying any of this makes sense, because of anything that is automatically transmitted to people or their bank account. Maybe I can change it, slightly, then.

Instead of a The Civic Dividend system where you are automatically given the money, automatically transmitted to your account, perhaps people have to do something to acquire it. This would have to be something with no human oversight, in order to retain the indifference of nature; there can be no human element. The closest facsimile I can think of that's helpful is the right to keep and bear arms, especially with the Supreme Court's rightful recent interpretations. They struck down, correctly, may-issue permits. Now states may permit the right to bear arms, but they cannot impose human oversight; it must be based on objective criteria. Perhaps various states could accord with this principle: people have a right to some version of the natural resources all men have access to in the state of nature, but the states decide exactly how that manifests provided it is objective and impartial.

Some states, to use the gun analogy, have Constitutional Carry. No permit. You got a gun, you can carry it. You don't need to ask, no paperwork. Other states have shall-issue permitting systems. You need a permit, but as long as you get proper objective training, you're not a violent criminal, and you're not mentally insane, you get a permit to bear arms. You get the picture. You can decide how people carry a gun, as long as you don't decide–objective criteria do. So you can decide how people get access to these natural resources, as long as it's objective.

Perhaps some states will choose universal access. Others against that idea might try some kind of test. You need to fulfill certain civic duties, like maybe voting. Maybe you need to state an aim for yourself as a citizen, what you wish to achieve in life, and as long as it is reasonable you get that resource. Something like that. As long as it's based on an objective set of criteria that's impartial like nature.

–-

That's a beautiful way to put it. Yes, it's like that. And that's actually a reasonable proposition, even if I disagree.

In the state of nature, you indeed had to pick the apple. They were abundant but required picking. If my opposition is caught up on that aspect, the lack of picking, then that can be restored. That models nature. Apples were abundant, but you had to go out and pick them. So the access to common resources now in society that represent that should be objectively available, but the citizen should, it's reasonable, have to go out and somehow pick that. This requires a bit of genuine work, creativity, and effort on their part. In nature, it was straightforward to pick an apple off a tree, yet it still required some difficulty and proactivity, so it's fair to critique the argument that transmitting the resources straight to someone's bank account is not like nature in that regard.

But if someone has to perform some duty, some action, that emulates that. There would be an element of search, an element of action, an element of labor. But, like nature, it must be indifferent and objective, not governed by a human which is unnatural. This natural work is the most dignified form, of one's real volition where there is no judge. What would some good civic actions to acquire this natural resource be to offer to my opposition, that would expressly indicate this concept of impartial, yet genuine search? What would my opposition be most swayed by?

–-

That's genius. As for the volunteer hours, that would be possible only if there were many government owned or operated/sponsored volunteer organizations that accepted anyone as long as they were willing, no matter how incompetent or unfit. If you apply or are willing, you will volunteer, and can stop anytime you want. That would eliminate the human oversight or manager signing a form, which is unnatural work. The rest are all acceptable and reasonable options. I may agree or disagree, but those are reasonable and, as described, inherently natural.

I actually am a fan of quite a few of these. I can see even the most staunch conservatives or libertarians who oppose it being in agreement, considering it is A) based on the fundamental principle that they hold dear, that of the dignity and liberty of human nature that stems from the state of nature, and B) still requires and offers the ability for man to pick the apples by taking a series of actions, and C) can be a decision delegated to the people and their elected representatives (the states), as with gun rights, therefore allowing different jurisdictions to impose different levels of civic activity to embody the picking aspect of the commons to which they have claim by birth.

Another question that would be good to address is precisely how it should be implemented. Let's say I'm dealing with the most staunch conservative there is. They won't budge. But I manage to get them to give consideration for a moment, by offering a system where you get access to the common resources to which you are entitled by doing all of those duties: you vote in a federal and state election, you file an annual civic purpose declaration, you complete a FEMA certification, you participate in government-operated volunteers (that accept all willing people without assessment or human oversight whatsoever), and you complete an online financial literary course. You do all of these things. Even the harshest opposition might at least be more willing to hear something about this, especially considering it would likely prompt more citizen participation, if for no other reason there is proof it is valuable because it is monetarily defined, instead of not: even if you didn't want or need the money, more people might vote or get FEMA certs because they are swayed of their value, knowing it must be valuable because it is defined by money, if that makes sense. And who doesn't want more people prepared for a disaster who are conservative or libertarian? How many staunch conservatives themselves, in all fairness and honesty, can they say the fulfill each and every one of those criteria which they probably would say are important for a citizen to fulfill?

But the question in that case would be what would be the more persuasive way to argue that the money should be dispensed? This common resource picked. Would it be more persuasive to this staunch conservative opposition to say the money should be given immediately, in whole, upon completion of all civic duties? Should be given piecemeal upon completion of each civic duty? Should be given only after all civic duties are fulfilled, but not as a whole; instead a portion each month, perhaps to prevent splurging. Or should be given each month, but proportionally to how many civic duties have been fulfilled. I.e., if you voted in the last federal election, you get $20/month. Vote in federal and state election, $40/month. Do that and have a FEMA cert, $60/month, and so on. What would be most persuasive? Personally, I feel like the last one would be to them, right? But do not let me sway you. Assess it as objectively as you can without my input. Be careful, as my opposition might be fierce and I need to be precise. Remember, this is assuming a case where you need to perform all duties to receive the common resources; but how so extended most persuasively?

–-

Now, in my opinion, for it to be reasonable and natural, it should be enough to cover what a man would be reasonably expected to accrue in the state of nature, with a reasonable amount of action and integrity. So I think it's fair to at least cover the following: enough food to survive each month, two pairs of clothing (for the whole year), some means to sleep, maybe even just a sleeping bag but perhaps something more, and some basic necessities like a toothbrush and water bottle. So I've got two mission objectives.

I want to identify precisely what it's reasonable to expect a man, in nature, to be able to accrue who takes reasonable actions with integrity. That's definitely enough food to at least not starve to death, but it does not mean Thanksgiving, either. 2 pairs of clothing for a year is reasonable, and perhaps more? The ability to have something or somewhere to sleep in? What would be reasonable there? A sleeping bag? Some bare modicum of habitation? In nature, would we expect a man to have nothing more than the ground to sleep in, or some sort of habitat, like even a little tepee or something even more advanced like a little house? He'd probably have some basic tools, etc.

Then, roughly, how much money would that be worth? Is $1200 too little? To me, that seemed like a pretty small mount for a year, but I could also be very wrong. I'm not sure.

Let's make this as reasonable as possible, and explain it, so my opposition can see precisely where the resources are derived from and represented.

–-

And, briefly, how much is that per civic duty among the ones listed?

–-

And my opposition would once again be vehemently opposed, even if it makes sense. They'd be fierce. $10,000 a year! $900 a month! Are you kidding me? And probably say a number of things that I'd find hard to rationally argue with as a result. The thing is, $10,000 a year is what a natural man could derive from nature with reasonable diligence, and it is moreover distributed over time for each civic duty each month, so the citizen still must pick them and perform effort. They might also still die. If they only work with nature, and nothing else, $10k is very difficult to live on. You could very well die as in nature.

But they'd still argue. This is why my argument needs to be like the 2A one, but be based on core principles. We give the decision of implementation to the states. As long as it is reasonable, it is legal. So the states get to decide on the exact monetary amount, and this is fair. Nature is equally plentiful, yet exactly what a man can be expected to reasonably derive from it is a matter of interpretation, it may be argued. Let them decide. The point is the interpretation must be reasonable.

What do you think it is reasonable for a man to derive from nature? Perhaps they'd say very little. A little food, scarce–here and there, few clothes, and maybe nothing more than the ground to sleep on. And honestly, that's fair enough. Others might think differently. Others may think in nature they'd be able to do a whole lot. They might think they could build a log cabin, a huge garden, and clothes from sewing strings together. Again, also, fair enough. Some people are that resourceful. It depends on the person.

So the states get to decide. But there reasoning needs to be deliberate. If the states reasonably believe and can articulate in their decision why they believe a man would be able to only accrue very little resources in nature, maybe only $1000 a year, then fair enough. That's less than $90 a month.

If a state believes a person in nature can accrue, with integrity, a lot of resources, and equate that to about $20,000 a year, and can articulate exactly how they arrived at that conclusion and it makes sense, then fair enough. It'll be that state and the people paying that money, at any rate. Now, if a state says that man, in nature, would earn $100,000 a year, that's unreasonable. While that might happen to some people, that's really unreasonable to expect that as an outcome for all people in such a state. Same thing in reverse: a state deciding a person would expect $0 from nature is unreasonable. You would at least expect a person to be able to forge some berries, or pick an apple off a tree, which is worth some money.

So that's how I can argue it. Like the 2A, give it to the states. $10,000 is a lot of money. Would a man be able to get that in nature from the representative fruits of their labor, with genuine integrity? Maybe. Maybe not, you could say, though, I suppose, just to humor my opposition. You could say they'd only accrue $500 a year. To me, $500 is really far too low to expect a human being to get, but if you can reasonably articulate why that is, then fair enough. It's up to the people and their representatives in the states to decide. But the core principle remains: people, by right of birth, have a right to the common resources of the Earth, which belonged to all before government. They still have right to the core of that common resource after government, since it still exists in plenty, just in a different form.

They still need to go out and pick that resource, don't they? An apple off a tree is useless unless picked. But the states would both get to decide:

A) the objective civic duties/actions that would equate to this picking,

B) the amount of work a man would reasonably be expected to perform and the results accrued in this natural state, and

C) the exact manner in which these resources that are representative are given to the people, i.e., either monthly, yearly, in whole or in proportion to duties fulfilled, and so forth.

This abides by the natural law, retains the fundamental human dignity that comes from the fulfillment of genuine, natural work that is impartial, and keeps the impetus to action inherent to humanity.

Now, your proposed way to dismantle it isn't bad, but it should instantiate a more fundamental premise. First, you ignore in the attack of the Commons of Opportunity the very simple pointing out that in nature, work required no permission. Indeed, for all the wealth this nation offers, finding a job requires permission from a human being. No matter how much opportunity a job may offer that's better than nature, nature was glorious in not giving nor requiring permission. If you had a hand, you simply took the apple. No amount of silicon emblazing or leather luxury can make up for the simple joy that comes from absolute freedom where nature is the only judge of work, not another man.

But, let's skip past that. You attack my premise from the very core, don't you? You say that the state of nature was a brutal land, and that Americans "created value from nothing." Secondly, you said that "private property isn't the sin [I] make it out to be." You talk about how the state of nature and its resources was replaced by abundant opportunity. Let me dissect each one of these. After that, I'll talk about something grander.

I want to first stress that I never said that private property is a sin. Private property is not a sin. On the contrary, private property is one of, if not the, greatest things to ever exist. Saying that I think private property is a sin greatly mischaracterizes my argument. I cannot tolerate you mischaracterizing what I'm saying like that. I hold private property dear, and I am in no way saying and have not said anything to the contrary. The concern is not that private property is bad. Again, it is the exact opposite. The concern is the fact that private property has been stolen, it is based on the greatness and importance of private property.

Second, you say that my argument is based on a lie, but you fail to identify exactly what that lie is. You say it's because in America the state of nature was brutal, and Americans created a land of amazing property. But you leave out the fact that creating more opportunity in many ways does not matter if that additional opportunity leaves out the natural impartiality of that opportunity. No matter how generous an employer may be, you still need permission. You can start a business, but you need initial capital, and when once a man at least had the chance to accrue that by taking their own chances in nature (even if it was brutal), they now no longer even have that chance. This is unnatural. No amount of additional opportunities in the realm of iPhone, trucks, and medicine can equate to the fundamental impartiality, aside from any human judge, and where capital can be accrued from literally nothing, from raw nature–nothing can make up for that. I agree that if you leave the one principle of impartiality and from literal zero accrual aside, then there is far more opportunity that would make the equation balanced on your side. But human beings derive value from work fundamentally not from the dollar amount, which comes second, but from the fact they voluntary and of their own volition created that work without oversight, from natural nothingness.

But, let's step back a bit. No matter how many times I say this, you will disagree with me, because I think our disagreement is based on a more base grasp of what property and the state of nature is. Let's step back, and remember that private property is integral to my argument, because it is important and good. The very fact I love private property is why I argue this. I would argue you seem to hold private property in less regard. However, let us hold off on that question momentarily and step back a bit.

Picture the state of nature. I want to see where we agree and exactly, if wherever, we disagree. So, I'm going to ask you a few questions. I want you to carefully reply with whether you agree, yes or no, in your reply.

So let's picture the state of nature. In it, are there resources? Yes or no?

Okay, if you agree there are resources in nature, then, in this state, who owns them? Who owns the resources of the commons? You would probably agree nobody. Therefore, everybody owns them. That's why it's acceptable for anyone to pick an apple off of a tree and eat it, if they need it. You would have to agree that a man in nature has a right to pick an apple off of a tree, because otherwise you would argue all people should starve. He can do this because he, like everyone has an equal claim to it. It is the only reasonable explanation for why a man has a right to eat an apple off of a tree.

Of course, he cannot take more apples than he needs. He cannot take more apples than to fulfill some nobler purpose, like starting a garden. And he cannot take more from the common store than would leave it good for everybody else. Are you with me so far?

I think that is something we can all agree on. You can't disagree that a man has no right to eat an apple off a tree. You can't disagree that he can't take all the apples from everybody else so they'd starve. So our disagreement very likely extends elsewhere. But I want to establish first that we agree on these things. Don't we?

So, let's keep going. If we agree, we agree that in nature, the people have a right to the goods of the commons. They have a right to those goods and the fulfillment that comes from harvesting them, because of what we established and likely agree on. The right to these commons extends to every property of those commons: their plenty, their fulfillment of harvesting, and to the impartiality of their existence and reward. It's that last point I should have made more clear. But let's dissect that.

Do you agree that nature is impartial? Yes or no? When a man picks an apple off of a tree, he may fail, he may get eaten by a tiger, or he may not find that apple and starve. Yet nature is still always indifferent. That is what gives man such joy from picking the apple in that state. He may fail, but he will always fail naturally. Nature is not like a human deciding, through reason or some other human form, whether he will succeed in picking the apple. Everybody is equal under nature in this regard. So, you must agree that at least nature is indifferent.

So, we agree, if we do, that: nature is plentiful, nature is fulfilling, and (new) that nature is indifferent.

The rights that people have over the goods of nature extend over every portion of nature's goods. That they are plentiful, fulfilling, and indifferent.

Do we agree on that?

So, fast forward to today when there are no longer any commons; they have all been picked by the government and by others. A man cannot go out, like in a natural state, and "start a business." Starting a business in a true natural state would be like going out and picking apples yourself. But there are no more apples. To start a business today, you need some apple's already in possession. Do we agree on that? Do we agree that today, you cannot start a business from zero capital?

If we do, then that is a key difference. In nature, you could "start a business" from nothing, which is why it was so fulfilling. Today, you cannot. You must have some startup capital. That is unnatural. Remember that we hopefully agreed that in nature your rights over its fruits extended to all properties. Nature is fundamentally indifferent: it cares not what you want nor what you already have. Even if you have nothing, the apple tree does not care. But to start a business now, you must indeed have something. We probably agree that you need something to start a business, and that you don't need something to pick an apple tree, and that the rights to the commons extend to all its property, that one of those properties is indifference, and that indifference means indifference over what a person already possesses. Therefore, you cannot reject the conclusion that the vast opportunities today, no matter how glorious, violate the law of nature by not being indifferent: they require you to have startup capital, or ask for human permission.

–-

I said to be reasonable. You are mischaracterizing a few of my points, like by saying I'm missing the fact that a person can take many apples to create a garden, but I explicitly said you can take apples from nature in high numbers if it is for a higher purpose. Regardless, you're besides a few things like that being generally reasonable, and in an actual conversation with the opposition I might expect things like that to happen in the heat of battle, so I'll allow it somewhat.

But, how would I respond to this counterargument? Let's start by clarifying the things that were mischaracterized. For example, I would ask what your logic talking about who owns the common land of nature is based on. We arrive at the same conclusion, mostly, but you argue that nobody owns nature. This contradicts the Lockean principles on which this country was based, and on which all rights like liberty and property are based. Here, I will quote Locke's Second Book of Two Treatises of Government, the principles on which our rights were and are heavily based.

"25. God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also

given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and

convenience. The earth and all that is therein is given to men for the

support and comfort of their being. And though all the fruits it naturally

produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are

116/John Locke

produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature, and nobody has originally

a private dominion exclusive of the rest of mankind in any of them, as

they are thus in their natural state, yet being given for the use of men,

there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or

other before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial, to any particular

men. The fruit or venison which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows

no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his—

i.e., a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it before

it can do him any good for the support of his life.

26. Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all

men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody

has any right to but himself. The “labour” of his body and the “work” of

his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes

out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his

labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby

makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state

Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that

excludes the common right of other men. For this “labour” being the

unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right

to what that is once joined to, at least "

You are correct that by mixing property with nature man gains an exclusive right to that resource. But the idea that nobody owns nature–what exactly was that based on? Is that just something you feel, that you made up? It's not based on the principles of this country or our rights. That's not a conservative position.

I could say more, and I can provide a full rebuttal, but first I want you to create a guide for how you'd rebut that premise, and begin by unraveling some things the opposition seemed to have simply got factually wrong. I think it's clear that if I am going to be successful, I need to go carefully step by step and provide sources for each and every individual claim.

Another example of that arduous step-by-step approach would be things like less logical jumps. Even if it does make sense, I need to go extremely slow so the opposition can get it irrefutably. For example, I state that there are resources in nature, and then prove that nature is impartial, it seems. But I then also state that nature is plentiful and fulfilling without proof. I don't think that directly came up in our disagreement, but it's things like that that contribute to my argument not being unassailable. But yes, it seems one of our disagreements is on this lack of proof. We agree that nature is impartial, but then you state that this impartiality is a bad part of nature, and that it's not what leads to it being fulfilling. So I need to prove why nature is fulfilling, and how it connects to impartiality. I can do that, but you can lay out a general roadmap as to how you'd do that.

It's this part, too, that confuses me. The opposition said "[y]ou have no right to indifference" (internal quotations omitted). That it's not a property to be owned or transferred. Then goes on to say it's a chaos to be overcome. First, whether or not you think chaos should be overcome is irrelevant in deciding whether a man possesses a property retained in its original form. If he possesses that right, it exists regardless of whether it should exist; that is a separate issue. I need to find a way to keep the opposition on track. He's bringing up points that are unrelated. I get what he's saying, but he's bringing up points for a different topic when talking about a single topic. I need to find some way to nail the conversation down to only the topics at hand. I think that goes back to being very deliberate, and step by step, painstakingly so, really, so that the opposition cannot get off track because the road I've laid out is so concrete. The thing is, the opposition seems to be blatantly wrong on the core issue of this point, that you have no right to indifference. If he focused on that and that alone, I could probably get them to see that. We agree that nature is indifferent already. Also, it's a basic deduction of the following:

1) An object that has properties possesses all of those properties no matter what shape the object assumes.

2) People who have a right over an object have a right over all that object's properties.

3) The fruits of nature have the properties of plenty, fulfillment, and indifference.

Therefore:

4) The various shapes the fruit of nature assumes, like being converted to orchards by government, retain their properties of plenty, fulfillment, and indifference, and

5) The people therefore necessarily have a right to the orchard's plenty, fulfillment, and indifference, in equal proportion to the amount they should expect to receive from genuine action in the state of nature from their labor.

That argument, if all its premises are correct, makes the conclusion seem to be guaranteed. Right? The problem is, again, in proving the premises. Take premise 3. I need to prove that:

The fruits of nature have the properties of plenty, fulfilment, and indifference.

I can attempt:

1) The fruits of nature are plentiful. This should be simple to accept, as apples seem to grow off of trees in plenty, berries off of bushes, and so forth. I cannot foresee this being denied.

2) The fruits of nature are fulfilling. This is where I begin to fall apart. How can I prove the fruits of nature are fulfilling? That's why my opposition gets a foot in the door. First, let's dissect this. Does man derive pleasure from picking an apple? The opposition at length described how brutal nature was, and how this was bad. I agree. Nature's brutality can be harsh. Yet, this is beside the question. The question does not have to do with all the time man fails to pick the apple, all of that harshness. The question is whether when the man does successfully pick the apple in nature, does he derive pleasure? Is that act of labor fulfilling? The answer must be yes, because it seems to be the very definition of pleasure: actions which advance one's life. The fact that man may fail for seemingly arbitrary reasons does not change the fact that when he succeeds, he is satisfied. If we focus only on whether the man derives pleasure from success in the apple, which is my only question and premise, then the answer is a simple yes. This is watertight, I think, if I can focus only on that one question. I need to be extremely clear that that is all the question is about.

3) The fruits of nature are indifferent. This is also important. The fruits of nature are indifferent in harvesting them. We already agreed on this, but I need to once again stress the importance of the single focus. The opposition got out of hand by mischaracterizing my argument, by saying "You speak of the joy of this impartiality as if it were a pleasant afternoon hike. The reality...is a life of constant, grinding fear" (internal quotations omitted). But again, that is not the question. The constant, terrible fear of nature with its tigers, snakes, and indifference have nothing to do when asking whether on those times the man does succeed in picking an apple, he is satisfied. And it has nothing to do with whether or not this indifference of nature is a good or bad thing. Nature is no afternoon hike in the opposition's opinion, but that does not matter when simply assessing whether the fruits of nature are indifferent. I need to make it clear that is the only question. I asked whether the fruits of nature are indifferent. That's it. That's all I'm asking. If you think they are indifferent but that's bad, that's okay. But the question is a yes or no as to whether the fruits of nature are indifferent. I need to get him to just respond directly to that, and not go off track. Because when he goes off track, he begins mischaracterizing quite often, and it prevents the discussion from being as principled as it should be.

Anyway, these are some principles my rebuttal needs to possess. I want you to craft your rebuttal, how you'd respond to the opposition, based on these principles and the guidance I've provided. We'll need to keep them on track, go step by step, provide sources where possible, and be undeniably clear on each singular portion. We need to figure out a way to prevent them from mischaracterizing or going on tangent. The opposition seems to be mostly reasonable, but at times they make what seem like somewhat emotional statements that do not logically follow or mischaracterize the question. This is to be expected in a real conversation, so I have to find a way to prevent that to keep them undeniably grounded and cut out any emotional daggers.

Maybe I can really stress these Lockian principles, that Locke is the foundation of natural rights, how much the Founding Fathers were inspired by him and based their principles of America and the Constitution on those ideas, and even point to specific parts of the Constitution that embody it or writings from the Fathers. That's ambitious, but doable. I could try to cite Supreme Court cases, too, which exemplify this, but I fear that may be being too detailed. If I get into case law I may just lose my opposition and sound like a lawyer speaking legalese. I should leave it at the Constitution, Locke, and the Founders. Yes, that's better, because that's conservative. Conservatives uphold that the most. They like Court Cases, but it all goes back to the Constitution, Founders, and natural rights exemplified by Locke.

So I should say that, then finally stress, the significance–I should remind them of how dearly they, as a conservative, uphold the Constitution and that on which it is based. I should end it with a question, asked not rhetorically, but in earnest, something along the lines of: what is it they truly value most out of the Constitution and the rights it protects? Let that be open ended, but regardless say something like, because their answer must be something a conservative would say if it's a genuine question, I'll say something like if you truly embody that so much, then don't those very principles demand they accord with their origin? You get the point. I should come up with my rebuttal in full on my own. But come up with how you'd tackle this based on my guidance, and addressing each of these points carefully to make my argument unassailable and something the opposition can't misconstrue.

–-

When the argument makes illogical claims but that aren't central to rebutting them, do I ignore them and get to the meaty part, or should I call them out? Will that strengthen my position by making them seem logically untenable even on unimportant points, or just detract from my true message?

I think it will help to point even the non-central points out. The argument demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of even what indifference is, yet goes on to talk about why I misapply it in this context. He tells me I cannot apply it, when he cannot even define the word! The opposition says nature's indifference allows "a stronger man to take your food without consequence." I'll assume the opposition means physically stronger, unless he means to say that thievery and rape are a sign of strength, which they are not. A man stealing your food is not a sign of nature's indifference. A human being is not natural. A human thief is not an act of nature. That has nothing to do with nature's indifference. The opposition lectures me about how I apply indifference incorrectly to the fruits of nature, yet they cannot even use the word properly from the beginning, let alone in nuanced situations.

Now, moving on to the central claim: the opposition makes what seems like a compelling case, but they fundamentally miss something concerning the rights of the governed. They claim that man traded the indifference of nature's fruits for the abundance of civilization. The problem with that claim is that the rights to the commons are possessed by each individual man, and the right to property, I'm sure you would agree, is fundamental. It cannot be ceded in the sense you describe.

Let me pose an example. You swear by the right to keep and bear arms without restriction. That right is inherent. You can own and carry guns. What would your stance be on someone saying that as a society, however, we traded the dangers of anyone carrying guns for the safety of regulations, where the government can deny you because they think you are dangerous? You would be against that, because individuals possess that right. You cannot say that society collectively cedes it on behalf of all individuals. An individual may decide not to express their right to bear arms, but that is their decision. We as a society never agreed to collectively strip away the right to self-defense from men. We gave it them, and they may not exercise it for fear of doing others harm, but they cannot strip it away. They always possess it. In the same way, we as a society possess the right to property. That's the foundation of this country, and it's in the 5th Amendment, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," and applied to the States by the 14th. We agree that humans have a common right to the property of the Earth. There is no law, and no agreement, just as with bearing arms, that restricts this right. Human beings retain the right to the public commons of the Earth to which they are entitled. They may choose not to exercise that right, and be satisfied with human-made plenty that exists. (Just as a person may choose not to exercise their right to bear arms, but be satisfied with the police's protection.) But they still possess that right, and may express it at any time.

You are confusing your desire for society's fruits, your acceptance for that, with the consent of everybody else accepting that as a substitute for that right. But nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere else did we agree on that, and I certainly don't. Americans have a right to property, that property includes the fruits of nature, and we may choose to express it at any time no matter what some members of society may choose to do with it.

Let's get this straight: you may be willing to accept society's fruits as sufficient compensation. But would you be willing to support the police as protection, and that we traded that for the right to bear arms?–therefore, you can no longer bear arms? I and many do not accept society's fruitful replacement, and I retain the right to own my property. Whether you choose to exercise that right or not has nothing to do with whether I possess it, and you cannot prove that we agreed to trade it, because we did not. Checkmate.

–-

You did not answer my question. Let's look at this closely. I asked you what was this Great Transaction. You say it's the Constitution, because it grants the government power to provide just compensation. Okay. Where is the Transaction that showcases that the people, as you claim, together lawfully and willfully authorized the government to take the public commons and replace it with what it has?

Are you trying to argue that the government can automatically do it, because it has provided "just compensation"? Wrong. Because the government has not provided just compensation. Remember that an object possesses its properties in all shapes. We agreed that a property of nature's fruits is its indifference. The new shape that you claim the government has transformed the public property into is not just, because it does not assume all of the properties of the original. Therefore, that is no Great Transaction, because it has provided no replacement. Although it is plentiful, and it can be fulfilling for you or others, that does not make it indifferent. We agreed that modern resources lack that indifferent property, but that nature's fruits don't. Since you agree the transaction must be just, and since you agreed your sole basis was the 5th Amendment and the Constitution, your argument fundamentally falls apart because it has not provided this just compensation. Unless you retract one of your core principles, you are wrong.

The rest of your argument continues to go down an indefensible trajectory. It's worth covering even if it's already fallen apart. You claim that the right to the commons is a finite resource, so it's different. That has almost no bearing in a distinction, because we agreed that nature is plentiful. We agreed that there is more than enough for all people in nature. It being finite, therefore, doesn't matter like you say it does in this distinction.

And if you want to talk about the Supreme Court, that's okay. The Supreme Court decided in D.C. v. Heller and in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen that the Courts of the country cannot decide to sacrifice inherent individual rights because of a public demand, no matter how urgent that public demand is. Some Courts justified banning firearms, as you know, because they thought public safety was a greater concern. They would judge the right to bear arms against the fact the community kind of decided (not in any law or ordinance, just kind of general sentiment) that public safety was a greater concern. Bruen and Heller ruled that this is unconstitutional. The rights enumerated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court says, exist in their own capacity and cannot be judged against external factors like public safety. You do not get to say that the public feels that this new shape is better (even if it is in technical violation) or that firearms are dangerous, so the rights do not apply. They exist, and no matter how you feel, this is a country governed by a Constitution, the very Constitution which you claim to uphold. The Court made it clear that this principle of the jurisprudence of rights applies to all rights in the Constitution, even it if focused on bearing arms; it expressly made that clear. The unambiguous law of the land and its interpretation explicitly says your entire premise is mistaken. You cannot feel that your public desire is more important than the Constitution, and weigh that in the calculation.

Unless you seek to abhor the Constitution you abide by, or reject what we've agreed on, you need to admit you are wrong. Human beings have a right to those common goods in nature, and they can choose to express it any time. You don't have to; if you want to not express it, you can do that like anyone can choose not to arm themselves. But you cannot deny it to others. You cannot deny its existence. And you cannot weigh that feeling or preference into assessing the existence of a fundamental, Constitutional right expressly encoded in the Constitution and affirmed by the Court. Stop arguing with the law of the land.

–-

You miss the solution. The solution is not to reject all of society; that would be nonsensical and itself deny people their right to private property as well. Remember: although people have a right to the commons together, one man may take it for a nobler purpose. Buildings, iPhones, and ships are a nobler purpose. So people have a right to keep that: this position does not detract from the fact that these things were mixed with just labor.

It just means that the small, reasonable portion that a man would expect to profit from nature needs to be restored, in all its plenty (yet, as you say harshness, so it should not be very much), its fulfillment, and its indifference. This just means that people have a right to, if they wish, a small sum of cash that is representative of the work which they could have with integrity performed upon nature in the state before government. But this does not mean, either, the cash should be "free," if this misaligns with people's principles. As the Courts stated, these rights should go to the people and their officials. Let the states decide how that resource representative of the state of nature's fruit should be gained, and how it should be picked. Through civic duties, through volunteering, through voting. Not a handout, nor a denial of the private property which men of America rightfully own. People still need to go out and pick that fruit. It's only a bare minimum that represents the apples of nature they commonly own.

That's it. The noble property of America is something we have a right to individually if we worked for it. That will never change, because we only took it for a good reason. But we neither can take more than what others would be able to take for themselves in good supply, so we owe them the right, if they wish, to what they would be able to pick in nature, if they are willing to pick it, indifferently, with fulfillment, and in plenty or harshness.

A similar principle is known in the form of maneuver discussion.

It is both a strategy and tactical methodology incorporating speaking and moving. There's also the grander speaking and maneuvering. Essentially, one of the biggest reasons people fail to create change in the time they want to see is because they can do one thing way better that I'm about to say. The way old people went about convincing, or democracy, is something called a discussion of attrition. A discussion of attrition is when you converse with the person on every issue. It's when you use all your intellectual capacity to win or persuade one point with the other person. You move on to the next, and repeat. This is a discussion of attrition, and it often fails, or gets results not as quickly as it can.

The alternative is called a discussion of maneuver. The key idea is to engage with the person on points of extreme interest, the deciding points. The second key idea is to move from one point to the next. You identify 3 main points in the discussion that are crucial to persuading them. In the discussion, you make one good point only on that first big one. Then you immediately move to the next; you don't keep pressing it. You make another good point before they know where you are. They'll make a point, but you're moving again. You make a final large point, and this time you see they're even considering what you're saying. When that happens, you make your final, large point about the whole issue, summing up only the most crucial aspects to win and only once this decisive point has been reached through maneuver.

There are two aspects here: speaking and moving as well as speaking and maneuvering. Speaking and maneuvering is the bigger one. Let's say you decide on 3 big points before the discussion to focus on, and only focus on those. That's a maneuver. During the discussion, when you are moving from one of those three big points to the next, that's a maneuver.

But within making a big point, you may have sub-points. You may have 2 sub-points, which are themselves distilled down to the two most crucial and absolutely most necessary topics in the discussion to control and guide. When you move from sub-point to sub-point, that is a move. So you make one of these sub-points, then you quickly move to the next. Once you have made all your sub-points, you've made your big point, which you may, if necessary, sum up briefly in another speak and move. Then you're back to maneuver. You've now got to maneuver to your second big, crucial point. So you sum up the sub-point well and good in an act of maneuver, then you maneuver to your next big point and speak about it. You get to the sub-points. You speak about one, then move. You speak, then move.

This is called maneuver discussion.

Let's connect these methods with a real problem. Suppose I'm faced with the issue of deciding how to handle people who advocate for absurd material. I need to stop them by democratic action, through conveyance. The problem is that these people are very vicious, and attempting to calmly explain things to them is troubling.

I have a strategy for this purpose. I call it the fire and water. It's crucial to be gentle in handling wrongdoing, but there are some things where that comes second. In eviscerating truly obscene content like this, first I set it ablaze by harshly criticizing, mocking, and humiliating it. For a moment, I drop down to the absurdity and obscenity of the content, and use extremely harsh and deadly tactics to achieve victory. Since I'm very good at this, and certainly wiser than the opposition, I'll be better in my brutality than them, and I'll set them ablaze. Once they are on fire from this, and only then, I offer the water: the gentleness and the solution that comes with a willful decision to engage in helpful content and activity. The intent of this strategy is to make swift and decisive change by pointing out the profound damage their ideas cause, by acting the core of it out, but better and with a nobler intent. This destabilizes them, rather than waiting for them to destabilize themselves, before moving in.

I include more details on the nuances of this strategy. This is a very important move. Those who wish to abandon the ideals of America, and of justice, have gone too far. They cannot be persuaded only with reason. First, they need to be destroyed, and we drop down to their terrible level and use profane language when necessary, use ideas or attacks that are very intelligent and clever, but normally we would refrain from using for charity's sake, and otherwise flank them with civil harm in mind. The goal of this is not plain revenge or harm for its own sake. The goal of the fire move is to, in a way, illustrate the harm or absurdity of their ideas by engaging in equally obscene or harmful ideas. Eventually, any harmful idea will destroy the one who holds it. By gently reasoning with them, we can accelerate this process, but it still takes time. However, by cleverly representing the nature of that bad idea, manifested in a form precisely to forward its destruction of the host, we can get them to a point where they have been obliterated. Then, we immediately switch over to the water, now that they have been greatly assisted in realizing the error, of their own will, of their idea, and we offer them the truth, the charitable goodness, and how to aid themselves and others. We offer, still using their own faculties without recommendation from us, a consideration of why that idea is bad, and what a more enlightened one might look like.

A Balanced Approach

How could I balance both approaches? It's clear that if I'm purely gentle, change will come too slowly compared to the harm being caused by bad ideas. Yet if I try the fire and water, I risk becoming the thing I sought to destroy. The only solution I can see is to diminish the fire and water. Maybe not the fire and water, but the something a bit less. I essentially first aim to dismantle their idea, and use harshness if absolutely necessary–but only the most minimal and softest harshness that is possible. Immediately once I've used it to assist them in realizing the error of their ideas, I offer overwhelming water, overwhelming charity.

It resonates with the idea of self-defense, where when you are faced with a deadly attacker, you must do everything in your power to escape, disengage, and defuse; and even if that fails, you must only use the absolutely most minimal force to escape, not to harm, and then immediately offer aid, or contact authorities. Doing anything more turns you into an equal or similar aggressor, and you will rightfully be punished. I can apply the same idea here. And there's a distinction between self-defense from criminals and calmly refuting and improving bad ideas. I'm applying the principle from it, nothing more.

This runs very close to home in understanding what it means to combat evil, to do a good deed. Most of the evil in the world does not come from people setting out to do harm. It comes from people having a good intent, and often having good reasons for doing. Oftentimes people will wish to combat evil themselves, and oftentimes that thing they are fighting is evil. But what happens is they don't understand the complete picture, they get overzealous, and somewhere along the way they end up engaging in evil. They end up becoming the evil they wanted to stop.

They think they are just. Ignorance is the leading, and perhaps only–if you are inclusive in that definition–contributor to evil. If I try to be too harsh in defeating my enemies, I may end up just becoming an enemy myself. It's the paradox of what one must do when they are faced with an evil they cannot defeat using only benevolent methods. If you defeat it, you've become evil; but let it stand, and you're also evil. The only solution is to exercise extreme caution when engaging in anything resembling even the slightest of civil harm, and then immediately offer unmitigated love, goodness, and justice, and yearn sorrowfully that it ever had to be done. When I say exercise extreme caution, I am not overstating it. If you go even slightly too far, you must understand that really is how the majority of wrongdoing on the Earth begins. Not from maniacal planning, but from someone going the slightest bit too far with exercising extreme caution.

This is where maneuver discussion comes in, where you ensure you points and compact, effective, and directed for the precise and nuanced task at hand.

If I use this, I may not even have to use any harshness, none really overt like I had thought, because the sophistication of the movement will aid me for itself. Indeed, sometimes a well-placed question can do far better than any polemic-style critique. Reserve those only when absolutely necessary, and resolve with goodwill.

Now, the trouble is that a good plan fails when it meets reality, as the saying goes. It's meant to illustrate the difficulty of executing via plan; plans are good. The key is rigid flexibility. In a real discussion, things are not going to go as planned. Some will, maybe many will. But the opponent will pose unexpected questions, some of your points might not work like you thought they would, and you might get bogged down. They key is to be flexible, and remember the bigger points; to be opportunistic, and seize any points that pop up, quickly and efficiently moving to them. Do not forget, no matter what the importance of speaking and moving. That is, to speak only on points of decisive and large importance, then to quickly, smartly and like a juggernaut, move to the next decisive point. When speaking, continue: speak about the biggest issues only, quickly go from idea to idea, and target things that are vital.

There is truth to the fact that the opponent may try things that will bog me down, confuse me, or make unmitigated discipline difficult. The idea is to be flexible and opportunistic.

But the opponent might not bite. People do indeed hold opinions sometimes for emotional reasons. In Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels they argue that people vote in democracies and operate in such settings often not because of logical thinking but because of cultural identity. The way to fix this is by understanding that if they won't see logic, I need to pivot to appealing to who they are a person. This is neither harshness nor manipulation. In the story of the one who views relativism as acceptable, I make my logical argument. Then I say, "If you truly value relativism and art because it proclaims justice, then that justice is to be found in universality. I know you abhor dictators, because your art showcases them being crushed. But if they are to be crushed, relativism is to be found in the adaptiveness of the law, the growth of the law, to suit the people, for an ultimate sense of justice. Because nowhere in the world is a dictator and is stomping on the human sense of person acceptable, right?" I appeal to their identity, their emotions, and get them to agree like that.

Now, they may still true to get me to bite. They may try pinning me down to a position. That's where flexibility comes in. I need to spend time to as efficiently as possible free myself from that position. Or I can figure out a way to point out how my next point is more valuable. If they're using bad faith tactics, often the best thing to do is to call that out and say the audience can see them using a ill-faith tactic. Things like that can get me moving and maneuvering with high effect.

This strategy can also be called convey and move and convey and maneuver, to encompass all forms of articulation, the written word as well as speaking, or others. It certainly applies as equally well in writing as it does in speaking, and I don't doubt for any other form, like podcasting, if that were to be conceived a different form.

Likely some will wonder why I profess so rapidly and loudly about Christ. The thing is, I have always been a Christian, but very recently have I decided it's righteous to speak superbly openly about it. This is for a few main reasons and realizations, some of which I will bluntly opine about. First, I'll preface this by saying that I don't believe in praying in public. We're not to pray in public, but in private, so I don't want to profess loudly about affiliation with supreme elements, unless I run that risk. The problem that belief runs into is the modern landscape.

I find it necessary to speak openly about this because Christianity and its values are under attack. By putting this forward, and helping to further the CC, I am doing a justice. The other topic has to do with the desire to fulfill the Gospel. Since it's under attack, and since the Gospel is sacred, I need to make it clear, its importance.

God is what unifies this country.

Really, the most major thing I wish to profess about Christ first is the balance between action and belief, and the necessity to enact peace and justice, even if it is difficult. My belief in Jesus comes from understanding his quest for goodwill, for mutual tranquility. That's a recurring theme throughout the Bible. Yet where I emphasize the careful path a Christian must walk is in the division, the firmness, and sometimes the harshness that one must do for, with, and of Jesus.

It being well-accepted that Jesus preached peace, I can leave that as a given for now, to return to it in-depth momentarily. What I would like to direct my audience's attention toward, then, is the opposite, and the careful balance. In Matthew 10:34, and in subsequent verses, Jesus tells us that he came to bring "not peace, but a sword." This means to say that we are to fight for righteousness, not only opine about it, especially to those who are unwilling to accept it again and again. Jesus goes in the next verses to tell us he came to set a son at odds with his father, "daughter against mother," and "a man's enemies will be those of his own household." What he means here is that those who are fervently unwilling to accept the Gospel, despite charitable petition after petition, must be turned away. This coincides with a similar saying of Christ where a man wishes to follow him, but must care for his loved one. Jesus tells him to follow him, and to "let the dead bury their dead." Being sharp and harsh to those who spite the Word is at the center here: he means people who are dead in terms of listening.

The full text of Matthew 10:34-38 where Jesus speaks to his disciples, from the NIV Translation, is:

"34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

‘a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

37 Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

Matthew 10:34 is often contrasted with what he said later in the same Gospel, where he cautions his disciple against drawing his sword. It is often translated as "Those who draw the sword die by the sword." Yet this is blatantly contradictory at surface level to what he said earlier. The key is in the meaning. The original texts from which the Scripture was translated are very clear. Jesus is not saying that any and all uses of direct hostility are unacceptable. The original texts are more clearly understood as "Those who habitually draw the sword shall die by the sword" or "Those who as a matter of habit or principle draw the sword shall die, equally trivially, by the sword." Some translations today get this right. You are not to use the sword, use violence, at every slight infraction. Indeed, instead, when they do evil against you, turn the other cheek and forgive them. Do not use violence or harshness as a matter of habit or principle, and do everything to avoid it.

Yet at the same time Christ "came to bring...a sword." Do not live by the sword. But keep one, and do your best to keep it sheathed. This coincides closely with one of the Beatitudes, along the lines of "The meek shall inherit the Earth." The word meek in this context does not mean what it means today, and indeed the original texts of this part of Scripture are clear. Meek today usually means submissive, docile, or somewhat tranquil. But the Bible means the word meek in a different or older way. The word meek meant, in the sense it is used here, not someone who is submissive. The closest modern translation is someone who is very strong, who carries a sharp sword and knows how to use it, and knows how to kill; someone who has perhaps killed before. It is someone who is dangerous and lethal, but chooses to keep that within them unless absolutely necessary. The Beatitude becomes: the strong yet tempered shall inherit the Earth, or those who know how to kill a man, but choose to nurture mankind instead, shall inherit the Earth. Christ is not praising docile activity, but instead praising restraint.

That is the essential message that I am conveying here, and that is at the heart of fulfilling the Gospel, both peacefully but also using sharpness or force when apt. It is not okay to offer compassion to those who have spat in your face again and again. You may turn the cheek once, and should. But humanity only has two cheeks. After being slapped on both, or several times, or dozens of times, it is no longer righteous to forgive, Jesus says. That is the sword he spoke of. Careful not to live by it, lest you become evil yourself. But do not keep it sheathed when it must appear.

At the same time we must offer infinite forgiveness to our enemies. We must turn not one cheek, but them all. The Beatitude of restraint is the most apt embodiment of this. God's love is infinite and beautiful. It extends outward like an oasis in the desert. Be kind to those who hate you. When they tell the worst lies about you, offer them compassion and friendship. Give to those who persecute you. And at every opportunity help the poor and let humankind be more devout. Give everything to kindness and mutual love.

Don't see something wrong and condemn it. Ask how to show love for that person or individual, knowing we are all one.

The most fundamental law is to love your neighbor, and to do to them what would be done to you.

I think John Locke put this well in his Second Treatise. He was quoting someone else. He said that people one day realized that they love themselves. But as they love themselves, they want to be loved. But how can they expect to be loved unless they love others, who must want to be loved the same as them? Like this, we have a duty to show compassion to everybody else. We know that what we love in ourself exists the same in every other person. Let's remind them of that who err.

Go forth, and do good deeds. Be charitable. See the world for the loving and kind place that it is. Because the kingdom of heaven, my friends, is at hand, and it already is at hand, or near. Repent, and be zealous in your devotion.

The reason I opine about this is because it is important, to a degree, to be inclusive and exclusive about the right members. In America, and I talk about America not because I don’t love all Christians. I do. It’s just that I live here, we’re the most Christian nation on Earth, and we’ve got to, as I see it, take up the mantle first to make change. But in America, Christianity has gotten scattered and weakened. We’re not prominent in the culture, mainstream, as we should be. I’ll talk more about some of the legal aspects of this momentarily. Christians have been diluted in the culture by atheism, and by not uniting enough as to core Christian teachings. Even the Catholics and various sects of Christianity that don’t accept us all as equal have contributed to the fracturing, based on the evidence I have available.

I will begin by briefly stating that America is Protestant Christian nation. The Founders were all Protestant Christian or at least accepted the values of it. Protestantism is still the main branch of Christianity, and the leading belief or system of worldly conceptualization, in America today. This was indeed baked into our Constitution. The freedom of religion clause in the Constitution was not for protecting atheism, or Judaism, etc. but about protecting various branches of Christianity, especially Protestant branches. This is confirmed by writings by the Founders like Thomas Jefferson’s letters to the Danbury Baptists, it’s confirmed by the Courts as written about by famous justice Joseph Story, and it’s all over the place in America’s history. Even in the 1800s, people were jailed for blasphemy, because freedom of religion and speech was, originally, predicated on the supposition of inherent Christianity. There’s a famous quote by one of the Founders that the Constitution is only suitable for a “moral and religious people,” not any other. God is still on our money, and in every session of Congress I’ve ever seen, we still pray at the beginning, and have an official chaplain. There were state churches in America. The Founders gave freedom of religion so there was not a single federal church, not because they didn’t want one per se, but because they didn’t want a single branch of Christianity running the government; they still wanted it to be Christian. That’s why various states had official state-sanctioned churches, and it was acceptable.

Christianity was and is important to America. Let’s not forget. And it gave us unity. So core was Protestantism in America that the Founders, in some of their writings, were concerned about allowing Catholicism! Because they feared they might have a higher allegiance to the pope or bishops, rather than the equal community of Christians under Jesus. I will cover details about the Protestant foundation in America in an upcoming segment, yet I’ve provided decent sources here, and all of what I’m saying is rather easily confirmed.

So I’ve established that Protestant Christianity is crucial to this country. And rightly so. It gave us unity, and where the country is united and just, it still gives us that. Important to point out that the most important part of that Protestantism was the core of it: believe we’re all equal, we’re all Jesus’s church, and we can all interpret it individually. This is why there were so many Christian sects in America, but they were all Protestant as to that core teaching, and so could coexist. It’s not to say they differed a lot in what they believed. They absolutely did, and that’s great. But they could coexist, and they lived with another and solved disagreements through reason and patience.

That core Protestant teaching is important. Believe what you want, but make sure you yourself believe it, that it is not superior to another’s belief in a divine manner, and that we’re all equal. I’m not saying you can’t say or understand your belief to be better than another Christian’s. I mean that you cannot say that on behalf of God. That other person is the only one who can themselves come to understand him and his Son, so you need to speak from a place like that, through reason.

That core teaching is important. That principle. Jesus, equality, individual and patience. You accept that, you can do whatever you want. Today, we no longer have that. I think we may be being too inclusive. That’s a leading contributor. Christians are very loving and accepting, so we want to accept people who are atheists, or who mostly, superficially, or vaguely believe in Jesus. We want to accept people who say they’re with us, but ignore justice at every point. And that’s what’s fractured us. That’s why there’s no Christian values in the media, on TV, or in people as commonly as there used to.

And so it is important to say: this is who we are. We are Christians. We are Christian in that we say we are, and we truly believe we are, and we even know we are. We act that out. We do justice on behalf of Christ. No, if you are an atheist, you are not with us, and you should become Christian, or be socially ostracized. At minimum, you need to accept the values. Yet even that attitude can be troubling. It’s that attitude of at minimum, and of offering too much compassion—or rather more accurately compassion where it is unwarranted—that has resulted in our fracture. Compassion without limitation is compassion without meaning. We hold compassion for everybody, but not the murderer when he commits murder. And Christ tells us in Matthew 10:38 that “whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow [him] is not worthy of [him].” He tells us again that those who are dead, meaning spiritually dead, must be left behind, and we must save ourselves and who we can. Look at all the dead today, my fellow Christians! Look at the atheists, or those who only superficially testify to Jesus but do not follow him. We cannot accept that. Let us forgive ourselves, let us leave them.

Now, when I say that we need to not accept atheists, I usually get some form of tacit agreement. It’s when I say that we need to be careful of even other Christians that we accept that I begin to have to be very clear and assertive.

We cannot accept phony Christians, those who profess faith in Jesus but don’t take up their cross and follow him. We cannot accept Christians who spread division among ourselves, like the Catholics or the Orthodox who profess themselves as the true and only followers of Jesus where certain of them are above other members. We need to leave those people. Did you hear me? I said we need to leave those people.

In the parable of the two sons, Matthew 21:28-32, Jesus tells us that there are those who choose to listen to him and act, and those who choose to not listen to him and not act. A man or woman who claims to believe in Jesus, but does not carry out his will, will not enter the kingdom of heaven. I have met people who like to say they have faith, but do too many unholy things. But as Christ says, a tree is known by its fruits (Luke 6:44). True faith is totally rich, if you have it. And if you do, then you do always, and without hesitation or question, and need not look further. You do.

It’s time, my Christian brothers and sisters, to pick up our cross and follow our God. Those who do not accept him, who do not believe we are all equal brothers and sisters, those who spit at him, or those who do not follow him again and again, we must leave. We must save ourselves and who we can. If we offer forgiveness to those who Christ says are “not worthy of [him],” we will fail to offer it to those who are, since it means something to follow Jesus Christ.

Yes, we must be careful to forgive those who are worthy, and not confuse the good fruit from the bad fruit. I’ll talk more about how we do that soon enough. Briefly, it involves asking whether they follow Christ at their core, or only pretend to. In the parable of the two sons, Jesus says someone who refuses to profess faith in him, but acts in service of him anyway, will be saved. When in doubt, ask yourself: No matter what this person says, or does outwardly, what do their actions truly represent? If their actions represent good, they are good and holy, they are welcome here, and we love them not only in heaven but on Earth. If they don’t, then leave them, pick up your cross, save who and what you can, and follow Jesus. The Word of the Lord. I will provide more details in an upcoming section, because this is a crucial differentiation, and there are strategies for ensuring ripe decision-making. Bear with me, and do your best, using what you know and the overarching principles I have shared, and will.

It is precisely because of our love that we must love.

But let us first acknowledge that the fracturing of the Christians across the globe, and the solution we must implement, involves saving the good fruit, and leaving the bad. Let Christ forgive the wicked, as only he can do that. We must pick up our cross. If we do, the road to Paradise, saving the country, saving the world, will be before us.

So what does this mean for us? Practically? It means that we need to take a series of civil actions.

First, we need to unite ourselves. And that unity must be truthful. We need to gain new members, and throw away the bad members.

We need to go and spread. We need to go and start, with our united Christian Church, going and taking control over the media, over the narrative—as they say—over our local communities, state communities, federal community. Eventually, to be surely future-forward, the world. And if you live someplace other than America, do what you can there, until we get to you.

It means we need to vote. It means we need to speak up. It means we need to form groups under this philosophy. Means we need to gather here, means we need to plan here, means we need to plan everywhere.

But all this is meaningless unless I present a clear vision of what to do. I am, after all, the leader and commander-in-chief of the Christian Church. If you want to know why and how that is fully, suffice it to say it is because I am the most competent man I know at this task, and the only one stepping up to unite all Christians and baptize the Earth. My power comes not from without but from within, as I can help other Christians, on their terms, see Jesus and his Father. And as Commandant and Colonel of the Christian Church, I know precisely what we must do to win.

Our main focus is, as stated, Protestant resuscitation, instantiation, upholding, and furtherance. And because that involves two main things—community and individual knowledge—I command our Church to focus on unifying the people elsewhere under Christ on their own terms. I command this not as a fiat order, but as a call coming from that you must all share this belief, so I order it by reason of unifying our desires.

What this command means is we must go to our brothers and sisters and get them to know Christ on their own terms, not forcing them to or even really recommending that they do, but showing its brilliance. We allow them to see it. The best way to do this is to get these people to see Jesus, by getting them to think and reason independently.

In our modern and too ignorant culture, people are often taught or trained what to believe. Few are trained how to believe. People believe, do, or say things because they think it is the proper thing to do according to other people. Or because they feel that way, or can’t come up with a good reason but they’re just going to do it. Or they saw it on the news, or in a social media trend. They allow themselves to commanded by pundits and algorithms, the fools. Yet some of them can be saved! It’s our goal to do so. I’ll discuss how to identify members and potential members of our community, once again. How to identify the good fruit from the bad. How to tell someone who is kind and loving but ignorant, or someone who willfully crushes and must be left.

Yet once you do find these people, we must persuade them to think on their own. Get them to reason as to why they believe what they do, think that they think. If they do, they’ll realize the error of their ways if they’re worth saving, which many are, and many aren’t.

That’s what this platform, in large part, is intended to accomplish.

In all truth, I’m not sure how much help I can provide to you in determining whether someone or someone else is or isn’t able to be saved here on Earth. That might be a judgment call for you to make. I can offer guides and what works for me very well, so what could work in different ways for other people. But in my absence, you will have to use your discretion.

Once you do find the people who are members of our community or who could be, I can show how to help them join the Christian Church, and see the face of God and his Holy Son. Do not offer this to bad people, those who willfully disobey and commit evil. Offer it to the worthy and righteous.

Later, I’ll get into precisely how we change the hearts of this select group. It involve the nature of this platform, which helps represent the Christian Church. It involves the nature of the content it hosts, its independence fostering creative reflection, which itself, guided by us, shall spark.

If you'll listen, there's an idea behind the three types of content on this platform. There are books, bills, and petitions. Original, independent content that empowers the individual. This reflects the progression of individual will outward. You create a book, an independent reflection that only you see. You put forth an operation for enacting it, which others might agree on or contribute to. Finally, you step and lead, taking strategic and dynamic action with those who share your vision, helping enlighten them. Coincidentally, if you believe in those, this also reflects the three branches of government. A book is kind of like an interpretation of events, or the law. Because what is the law but the desire to do good? A bill is the creation of the law, after having interpreted it, or deciding how it should be arranged. It's an arrangement to create a vision. The petition is the enforcement of the law. It's the wheels.

And what American doesn't love those two things more than any other? God, and democracy. This way we get to know ourselves, and we get to do something great.

We have power. Probably, we have a lot more power than we think. There's this feeling today of wanting impact. But how, they ask, can one person change the world? Democracy: 300 million voters, you've got one vote. How can I change things? By changing other people. How? Profiting from individuality. There are things that only you can see. If you can explain that in a revolutionary way, show how it benefits other people, and help enact it, you've got far more than one vote.

But one thing I've noticed these days is there is too little opportunity in many mainstream consumer platforms, or other ones I believe, for one person to share authentic, persuasive, engaging content. I mean content that is engaging. Content that is long-form, impactful. Content that can go on for quite some time, to cover all details, hit all nuances. This is the type of content that we need more of. On social media we have the ability to communicate with almost all members of society instantaneously by using a smartphone. We can talk anywhere, anyone, who has access to the internet. But how often do we see little engaging content, content that repeats other points, that isn't original, and it doesn't go into enough depth to be meaningful, and for an individual to convey their unique viewpoint? They cannot do so in a way that will impact others, orchestrate, or move to strategic action.

This platform solves that. We have a way to communicate with long-form, dynamic content. This content is in-depth. It's not the type of content where you're going to write it, post it, never edit it, and it's a few sentences, or even a few paragraphs, or even many. It's content that is entire chapters. It's books. It's bills. It's petitions. This is what we need for one individual to truly have the depth to convince others, to have an impact. And why? Because we can all profit from the individual, from each one other person, because each one of us sees the world in a unique and profitable way, such that if they could articulate that in nuanced cases where that ability would be valuable, people would need it, and be persuaded by it. This is no magic entity that only certain individuals possess, and it is not necessarily something to parade about having in the ordinary sense. It's something that we all possess, only because situations are varied and complex, so are we, and so we need, in specific situations, specific answers. But don't get caught up on this and start chanting about how this is some great and remarkable thing; which certainly, in some sense—the sense I fear you don't know—it is, but it is also a plain and practical fact deserving of no object-oriented parade, but rather a calm conviction and impetus on each member of society here in America to act.

When I say that we each see the world differently, I mean to say that no doubt there are objective truths. One of the things this platform seeks to end is the leftist notion of moral relativism, which will be crushed. There are objective realities, and as a result we come to get to know certain things or get good at certain things within the world to advance those.

Or let me put it a different way. Let's take the most essential form of content. And I say essential because it's the foundation for the rest, not because it's technically or otherwise more impactful than the others; it's not, because ideation without essence is meaningless. And this gets into a kind of self-recurring theme here, but I'll just move on for simplicity's sake, because this will make sense in conjunction with the themes. Books.

If each person wrote their own book, we'd get unique insight in the world that we wouldn't get otherwise, and this would prompt us to do certain things. That person would influence us. The reason they can do that with a book and not a tweet is because a tweet does not allow a person to share their unique vision, instead only bits and pieces of it, which on their own, and aside such other brief and ungrounded content, loses a sense of itself and becomes indistinguishable from dullards, even the wisest.

One person does it.