A year or so ago I was working on putting out a second run of Capitaoism and had put aside writing in deference to audio and video. This is a previously unavailable video uploaded in June 2023 I thought was worth sharing in the second to last week of the [redacted] project. I’m also including the full script below the embedded video. Enjoy.

Saying the words, I love you is not the same as loving someone. In the same way, that the word water will never make you wet, or the word value will never bring you fulfillment. lived experience is distinct from the descriptors and attempts to communicate what it is.

On some level, I trust that you understand what it is to be alive. After all, you’re doing it right now you can say I am watching, but that is not the same as the experience of watching itself.

It is in the same fashion that law is not justice itself. attempts to define a good life, ends up, limiting the ability to do so in reality. Law is slower to change than human need and innovation.

The goal of the United States Constitution was to create a system of law, in which each person, without exception, could be free to exercise their naturally occurring human rights among which are life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

These words are unsatisfactory, simple, descriptors of something underlying, perhaps better described as lived experience, love or value. None of these capture it, because by nature that which Jefferson was driving at goes beyond the human ability to articulate. These are things which we colloquially say come from the heart, not the head, because an intellectual understanding kind of misses the point.

What that, are we to do in an effort to ensure peaceful interaction and the maximization of this incommunicable, naturally occurring good?

It begins with an understanding of our place as humans, both as part of a unified whole universe, and separate, distinct instances of consciousness. While much could be said about the differences between these two states, they are in fact, simultaneously occurring it all circumstances.

A system of law, the arrangement between people of what behavior should be accommodated, for, for disallowed, ought to be bound by this reality. Under no circumstance is each human fully united with another human consciousness, and at no point is a living human, not part of the shared universe .

As each instance of consciousness proceeds, so precedes the universe at the time and place that consciousness is physically embodied.

The scope of law is an institution between individual consciousness occurrences, human beings, not a contract with the universe, and this reality as a whole. Not only is the universe, unable to understand the communication that we would put forth in the form of law, but it is also on accountable, and thus beyond. A hurricane cannot be held liable for the damage it causes.

So, we are left with a lesser scope of law, which applies to human beings despite still being constrained by the nature of reality.

What, though, of human differences? No two humans are the same both in physical form and underlying consciousness. This reality, too, must be accommodated for in law that recognizes human value. It cannot morally dismiss the rights of some for the benefit of others. Equal treatment under the law, is a necessary baseline.

Each person has the natural human right to live not just in their head, but in their heart. The pursuit of their happiness is not abstract, it is both unique to each person, and quite real in the tangible world, to the extent each person desires it to be.

It is, then, in law, a question of constraints rather than definition of each version of happiness. The latter isn’t possible and the former is quite a bit of work already, to apply without straying.

Law that is consistent with the lived experience of being human cannot articulate what that entails, and can only set guardrails for what is not acceptable, constrained by belief in what is real.

The question is where to draw that line?

It could be said that ANY system which holds standards must be consensual, however, the principle of consent must be upheld itself.

In other words, there is a Moral floor. Without a unified standard of belief in consent, no standard is possible. Power, in such a case where belief in consent is not present, goes to those most ruthless, and inevitably those who are willing to violate consent to achieve their ends. It is a race to the bottom, well below the moral floor.

A system consistent with the human condition, and reality, then, requires at least the recognition of human value, and the rights therein, despite its inability to articulate that value or codify the thing itself, which no system can do.

This is the moral floor, a solid foundation on which peaceful functional governments established between and among humans becomes possible.

Consent is the cornerstone of peace and prosperity.

While we may argue over which system provides the best means to understand and accept human value, and which system is most likely to lead to consensual ends among imperfect people, the violation of consent is, in all cases, a move away from the addition of value, as value can only be assessed through the eyes of a consciousness experiencing life.

Naturally, then, responsibility falls back to you for your life’s experience, and me for mine. Though that places no limit on consensually helping each other along the way. The system by which you live is yours to choose, including your ability to delegate decision making power or work with others to make choices.

In fact, the only limitation on your action is then a clear bright line clarifying no human has the power to violate anothers consent.

That’s certainly not the way things are going now, and it’s why I’m bothering to talk about these principles and human rights in the first place.

Change itself is an inevitability. For all the elements of this universe behind our control, the direction of change in law, toward or away from respect for human value and consent, is well within our control.

The opportunity to move in either direction exists in each present now. Given the opportunity to live, which you have right now, what are you going to do with it?