The Quickening.

UPDATE #2:

Definition of the Quickening: Instantaneous or near instantaneous growth in knowledge, as in the movie Highlander. When an imortal destroys another, there is an event where the knowledge and power of the destroyed is instantly gained by the destroyer. The human race has been ever evolving at exponential speed due to the vast access of knowledge. Much in the same way as in the movie, an individual today can aquire the same amount of knowledge in a matter of weeks that it took a lifetime to aquire only a few hundred years ago.

UPDATED: FINAL CONCLUSION FIRST HERE - Because of “The Quickening” society will be forced to make a choice. Choice A would be to move ever more quickly towards a fascist state with a priority placed on safety at the expense of freedom. Choice B would be to eliminate all criminal codes, and allow all disputes to be decided by civil codes with a priority placed on freedom at the expense of safety. We, as a society, have been quite successful to date at balancing the two and maximizing utility at a small expense of freedom at times and of safety at other times. But, because of “The Quickening” at some point this balancing act will not be possible.

Now please read in full:

One of my favorite movies in high school was Highlander. At the time, I did not understand the term “quickening”, but since H.S. it became quite apparent what the term means. The time it takes for a story to air in the MSM from its birth as an anonymous tip is quite often less than a day. In the era of Watergate, it took months if not years. This is not an editorial on investigative journalism; it is merely an effort to show how rapid the news cycle occurs today.

Civil liberties, and the violation of these liberties, are almost always mentioned when the topic of the patriot act is brought up. The patriot act has been blamed for so many violations of our civil liberties and the potential for abuse of this act is growing at an exponential pace. How this ties into the quickening, in a moment.

What was the original intent of government in the post Magna Charta era when the priority of protecting a person’s inalienable rights evolved as the supreme goal of government? In a nutshell The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S, constitution, would sum up the role of government. The constitution, less the amendments, merely defines the institutions that will write, interpret, and enforce the rule of law. The Bill of Rights describe, in detail and in a way only the queen’s English can accommodate, what kind of laws the legislature can write, how the executive branch is permitted to enforce said laws, and when the judicial branch is allowed to introduce itself into the process to adjudicate the law.

Other than during the era of Kingdoms and Empires, where would the federal criminal code derive its roots? Is there basis, in a free society, for such laws? The short answer is that it has no roots, but without roots it cannot grow and from where I am standing Jack’s bean stalk looks like a four-leafed clover next to the federal criminal code. The real answer is that this weed did not need deep roots. McCulloch v. Maryland circa 1819 and its “useful furtherance” clause was the seed that eventually germinated and wrapped itself around the commerce clause to justify regulating behavior between the states. Eventually, the 18th amendment in 1868 including the “equal protection” clause was the straw that broke the camal’s back. While the intent of granting women and minorities equal protection was pure, right, and progressive, it gave nitrogen fertilizer to that now thriving weed known as the federal criminal code. It allowed the federal government to regulate any and all behavior, not just behavior of the state, but behavior of the individual.

The federal criminal code is a confiscation of property rights. One could own and operate a store, but one could no longer prevent negroes from shopping in that store under federal law. The store could no longer be a “men only” store under penalty of federal law. Eventually the feds began to realize that by simply making new law, it’s long arm could reach small groups as well as states via the 18th amendment, the commerce clause, and the now implicit powers of the federal government thanks to the federal court ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland. If the federal government wanted to protect farmers and allow them the right to also shop they could. If the feds wanted to protect gays and allow them the right to shop they could. If the feds wanted to allow the poor the right to shop in spite of the lack of money they could. If the feds wanted to prevent murderers from shopping they could. If the feds wanted to prevent drug addicts from shopping they could. If the feds wanted to prevent everyone that disagreed with them from shopping they could. If they wanted to make it difficult for a middle eastern person to shop they could. Finally, the feds realized that they could dictate individual behavior as well. If they wanted to make it difficult for a 25 year old middle eastern male that lived in the neighborhood of Price Hill in the city of Cincinnati to shop they could. If they wanted to prevent me, a white male 39 years of age that lives in Cincinnati, from shopping they could. They could, they could, they could, by simply creating enough law that eventually everyone would be restricted under the edicts of such laws. God help you if you find yourself within the sites of the the federal government’s metaphorical cannons of codified law.

The Federal Government now has the power to make law as it sees fit. Each law passed is rooted in good intentions. There is no conspiracy. It is a democracy and the laws reflect this. But without the restrictions placed on it by the Bill of Rights, the government can pass any law. In a snapshot view this in not that bad, but each snapshot view must also bring with it every law ever made. This is an ever-growing model. It never shrinks. By definition, eventually, we will all be in violation of some law.

If one is not some freak, Ron Paul loving, radical, constitutionalist this still would not be that bad. There are now over 300 million citizens in the United States. No way in hell could the government affix its sites on you. I would agree with this, except for “The Quickening” factor.

Again, I claim no conspiracy here either. It is simply a truth. It is known as Moore’s Law. There are things, information being one of them, which is disseminated at rates that quicken exponentially over time. This effect creates a frantic irrational reaction when it is not exposed to pure market place pressures. While a democratic, relatively transparent, government tends to make rational decisions in the long run, when put into the inevitable time crunch brought on by “The Quickening” it may choose the lesser of two evils, which may or may not produce rational long-term outcomes.

For example, let’s say a person is pulled over for a busted taillight. The person’s information is put into an on-board computer inside the policeman’s car. All sorts of output are generated, mostly benign, but there are a few flags. What should the policeman do? There are infinite choices. He/she could write a citation and let the driver go. He could interview the driver to assess the situation further. He could search the vehicle. He could detain the driver for further questioning. He could release the driver, do further research and know where to find the person if something surfaces. He could inquire more into the nature of the red flags before releasing. Etc., etc., etc.

These are just a few options. Now if one assumes that an individual can accumulate information and assets in order to do harm at such a rate that it may only take a few hours for this person to be in a position to do harm, what would be the safest action for the police officer to take? And what are the consequences for taking the wrong action? If the wrong action was to release the individual, then there are grave consequences. If the wrong action was to unlawfully detain the person then there are no consequences. This is because of the federal criminal code. Without the federal criminal code, the police officer may be violating a person’s property rights if the person is detained and there could be, potentially, a very punitive remedy placed upon the state. Without the federal criminal code or any criminal code for that matter the officer would only have one choice. That choice would be to not pull the individual over in the first place, unless that person is actively violating another person’s property rights.

Because of “The Quickening” society will be forced to make a choice. Choice A would be to move ever more quickly towards a fascist state with a priority placed on safety at the expense of freedom. Choice B would be to eliminate all criminal codes, and allow all disputes to be decided by civil codes with a priority placed on freedom at the expense of safety. We, as a society, have been quite successful to date at balancing the two and maximizing utility at a small expense of freedom at times and of safety at other times. But, because of “The Quickening” at some point this balancing act will not be possible.