Sam Aurelius Milam III
In the field of statistical analysis, even the basics are complicated. For example, here's a description of the second simplest idea in the entire field, population standard deviation.
The Wikipedia article includes a simple example calculation. For my purposes, the most important thing to notice in that example is that the denominators of the equations include the term n, where n represents the size of the population being studied. Population size is fundamental to statistical analyses but, for the purposes of this article, it's most important when it's equal to one. Anybody who works through the example calculation for a population of one, rather than for a population of eight, as is shown in the example, will discover that, for a population of one, the variance is zero and the population standard deviation is the square root of zero. I think that might be what's called a trivial solution. Whatever the terminology, the result isn't useful for statistical predictions.
It's assumed, in the example, that the population represented in the calculation is the entire existing population. If such a calculation is done for a random sample, taken from a larger population, then Bessel's Correction is applied. Bessel's Correction replaces n with (n - 1). When n equals 1, then (n - 1) equals zero. The mathematicians insist that division by zero is prohibited. So, by the accepted mathematical conventions, with Bessel's Correction reducing the denominator to zero, it isn't possible to calculate a sample standard deviation for a population of one, whether or not it would be statistically useful.
More advanced statistical calculations use equations that can boggle the mind. However, in any such analysis, the same thing is true. Whatever is being calculated will include the term n or (n - 1), in the denominator, somewhere in the calculation. When n equals 1, the calculations are either useless or impossible. That circumstance might not have a name, but I think of it as The First Principle of Statistical Analysis. It tells us that it's impossible to statistically predict the behavior of an individual.
The Principles of Liberty
The Principles of Liberty are presented in detail in Pharos and in The Sovereign's Library. The first of those seven principles tells us that there isn't a cause of action until there's a victim. Thus, a person cannot legitimately be punished merely because of something that he might do, or that he's capable of doing. Punishment can be legitimately administered only in response to actual harm, provably caused by the actual behavior of an actual perpetrator. It isn't acceptable to punish somebody based on mere speculation about something that he's capable of doing, or that he might do.
Many bad policies exist in our society, mostly based on dogma and opinion, and without much regard for such principles as those noted above. Individuals are restricted, punished, or both, as a consequence of such policies. The policies apply to individuals who haven't caused any harm at all, often based entirely on some completely unsupportable statistical expectation that they might do so. The best example of such bad policies, because its consequences are so pervasive and so draconian, because the policy has been so mindlessly embraced, and because any opposition to it provokes such instant and vehement denunciations, is the punishment of drunk drivers.
Statistical analysis can provide an estimate of the probability of alcohol related accidents within a population of drunk drivers. The larger the population, the more confidence there will be in the estimate. The smaller the population, the less confidence there will be in the estimate. When the population size is one, then it isn't possible to make an estimate at
|all. The equations are not valid for a
population of one. Indeed, statistical analysis is unable to prove
that an individual drunk driver will EVER cause an accident. Such
a driver might drive drunk for his entire life and never cause any harm.
Nevertheless, the policies impose upon everybody, drunk or not, a police
force of strutting, armed, gestapo-style enforcers who roam the streets
and highways at will, dispensing repression and exacting tribute.
They don't have any respect at all for The Principles of Liberty.
Their only agenda is absolute and rigid enforcement.
Such authoritarianism isn't new. So far as I'm aware, human societies have always consisted of subservient people under the control of authoritarian governments. American society certainly isn't an exception. Americans will boast of their freedom and rights, but a benevolent master is a master just the same, and the ability to vote for that master doesn't make the voter any less a slave. In America, as elsewhere and as always, everything is either required, prohibited, or regulated. Obedience is mandatory. Any refusal to cooperate, even in America, will probably result in punishment.
Maybe governments are always oppressive because people aren't fit to govern themselves, or to manage their own affairs. Joseph de Maistre commented that every nation has the government that it deserves. Poppa told me that people are just too damned stupid for it to even be worth bothering with them. Hopefully, Poppa was wrong, but I've spent a big part of my life trying to teach people to stop encouraging, submitting to, and cooperating with the repressive evils of government, all to no avail. Things are worse now than they were when I started. I suppose that the best thing that I can do for now is to keep trying, and to try to live my own life according to the principles that I'm trying to teach.
A Proposed First Principle.
With his execution for treason looming, Richard Rumbold declared that Providence doesn't send a few men into the world, ready booted and spurred to ride, and millions ready saddled and bridled to be ridden. Maybe, with death imminent, he perceived a previously unnoticed First Principle, and denied it. Maybe he was wrong. Maybe it's a true principle. Based on my own experiences, I can suggest it as The First Principle of Human Society, hope that Rumbold was right, and hope that I am wrong.
Letters to the Editor
In a few days I'll be out on parole for 8 months and it's twice the pain than in prison! Sure, I had some guards to avoid and some cellmates to stay away from, but the broad spectrum of choices on the outside can make hell a very easy choice to accept, unconsciously. Every face, it seems, offers 1st class trouble. Some of that is self-thought in action, of course, but in other cases it's just bad company returning for another round. Watch what you are thinking in your head (mindfulness in action) and you'll soon notice how things on the outside slowly change for the better. Hang in there.
—Jim, in Victorville
Your comments reminded me of an essay that I wrote way back in 1985. The title is Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief: A Satirical Essay. It's available in Pharos.
The apparent vanishing of [name withheld] has caused me to start thinking about you.
If you suddenly die or mysteriously disappear, have you made arrangements for someone to notify your subscribers? It would spare your readers a certain amount of distress and confusion if you could do so.
On another topic — Recently, I heard part of an interview on the radio. Ralph Nader, the famous consumer advocate, was interviewing an author named Nomi Prins. She has recently written a book on the Federal Reserve. I was mildly shocked, because what she was saying could have been copied from your old essays, or from some of the books that the Constitutional Patriots used to read. The facts about the Fed are becoming better known. It remains to be seen what people will do about them.
I don't have any plan for having people notified when I die or disappear. I also don't have anybody available to continue my work.
During my brief investigation by the FBI, in May of 2006, I told Special Agents Ray Duncan and James H. Rominger that I didn't intend to go into hiding. I told them that, if I disappeared, then it would be at the hands of agents of the Unnamed Agency. I told them that, in such a case, I expected them to rescue me. They didn't seem to be even remotely interested. When I started telling them my beliefs about
11 attacks, they seemed like they mostly just wanted to leave.
I never heard from them again. They didn't reply to any of my subsequent
correspondence. Maybe they disappeared at the hands of agents
of the Unnamed Agency.
I occasionally notice my ideas being used by somebody else. If he (she, in this case) actually took the idea from my work, then a reference to me would be courteous. However, ideas, by their nature, are freely available for anybody to discover or to use. Intellectual property is a contradiction in terms.
All of my essays about money, taxes, and corporations are available under that heading, in Pharos. I've added several more essays under that heading since I left California. Maybe you haven't read those subsequent essays. It might be worthwhile for you to do so.
Regarding the facts about the Fed, the issue isn't what people will do about them. The issue is what you will do about them.
I just got your June 2018 Frontiersman. As always, I enjoy reading your thoughts. For starters, I totally loved your upside down flag, nation in distress stamp. Not only an astute observation but a great kick in the nuts to our "gov-mint". Ha ha. I totally dug it.
Now, to your newsletter. Whoever the prisoner was that said blah, blah, and ended up in the SHU, what an idiot. I'm not saying he's all wrong. Of course you stand back to back with a buddy in a bar fight. And prison is a violent place, SHU or mainline, and sometimes, hole be damned, you have to hurt people, or be hurt.
But the guy who wrote you, describing injuries, etc., either he's a liar or a dumbass who enjoys being in the mix. Instead of being a braggart, its better to be quiet and carry a big stick. That way your enemies never see it coming because you haven't ran your mouth too much and gave up your game.
Anyway, I don't want to waste ink on a j-cat. What you wrote, "Carnet: Rise of the machines", I agree with your take on the issue. The idea of your car locking you in and driving you to a police station in the event of a warrant is a fucked up thought. And as for a former girlfriend getting a restraining order, the problem could be larger than your car restricting where you can drive. What if she wants to be a bitch and follows you, your car would attempt to maintain the minimum distance required between you and her, and since the car is in "code-mode", the car couldn't relinquish control to you and she could drive "you" around all night, and what would the car do if she drove you into a cul-de-sac? Would it then deliver you to the cops, reporting a restraining order violation?
And yes, what a creative way to kidnap, and also, one could send a car to pick up the ransom to avoid contact. But think about this, what if the government declared "marshal law", what an effective "crowd-control" measure, to reprogram all autos and trucks, drones, etc. to run over anything that has an ambient temperature between 97 to 100 degrees, or if the moving object detected by the car wasn't transmitting a code recognized by the government. Then all movement would be "dispatched" by the autonomous, roving, computer guided, 4 wheeled army.
The implications of privacy violations and crowd control are staggering. One could write hundreds of Sci-fi novels based on this premise....
Regarding my Carnet article, on pages 1 and 2 of the June issue, Carl, of Gramling, South Carolina, found some related information in an article on pages B1 and B2 of the June 14 Wall Street Journal. According to that article, authorities in China are equipping cars with RFID chips, soon to be mandatory, and installing RFID readers along the roads. According to the article, the new devices will "vastly expand China's surveillance network... [that] already includes widespread use of security cameras, facial-recognition technology and internet monitoring.”
The Wall Street Journal article neglected to mention the similarity of the Chinese system to the vast and growing transportation-based surveillance and control infrastructure in this country.
Sam Aurelius Milam III
•I seriously doubt if any so-called indigenous people, anywhere on the entire planet, were originally native to the region in which they lived. Instead, I suspect that, in every case and without exception, their ancestors were foreign invaders who displaced previous so-called indigenous people.
•Democracy isn't based on the notion that the majority knows best. Democracy is based on the notion that the biggest army will probably win, and that whichever side has the most votes would probably also have had the biggest army. Thus, votes are substituted for bullets. The decisions are still based on might, not on right, and it's still just as likely that the wrong side will win.
My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; Betty; James, of Victorville, California; Sir Donald the Elusive; Eric, of Ione, California; and Robert, of Stockton, California.
Signs of Getting Old
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor