Robots and American Government

Isaac Asimov is my favorite author of all time. One of the many reasons is his ability to make his fantastical technological fiction so logically consistent. He is considered to be the father of robotics and if you haven’t read his Robot short story compilations, go now and be inspired.  A foundational (pun intended) element to Asimov’s robots is the 3 Laws. Much has been written, primarily by Asimov himself, on their various facets, but I recently had a light bulb moment in regards to a more political application. The 3 Laws are as follows, from an excellent book (and OK-ish movie) I, Robot,

“The Three Laws of Robotics:
1: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; 2: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; 3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law”

A full understanding of the laws and their impact on a Robot is the subject of Asimov’s Robot series and I highly recommend.

               

          My use of them is in a different realm altogether. Read the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the 

pursuit of Happiness.”

I believe we can take from that sentence the 3 Laws of Robotics for a Free Society.

The First Law would be:

1: A Free Citizen may not infringe upon the life of another human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to lose their life.

The unalienable Right to Life announces that all life is equally valid. It announces that all ages, races, classes, and ethnicities have intrinsic value and that we all share the responsibility of defending each other and of defending the right to defend ourselves. It outlaws murder; it places a stern disapproval on capital punishment; and discourages all forms of war, particularly unjust total war. A society which practices abortion, euthanasia, genetic breeding, and human drug trials is breaking this law. It sits at the foundation of Freedom. No one who is scared for their life is truly free.

The Second Law would be:

2: A Free Citizen may act in accordance with their conscience in all matters, except in cases where such inclinations would conflict with the First Law.

                The unalienable Right to Liberty is the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Freedom. The catch phrase “It’s a Free Country, isn’t it?” captures the defiant toddler like desire we all have to be the masters of our own destiny. While a more adult approach to life is expected, the ability to do whatever we please should be valued. I don’t have to ask the government before I travel to another part of the country. I don’t have to check with my governor before I buy cheese. I don’t have a supervisor which assigns me a living space. I am free. I pick my leaders and I pick my leisure. However, this is a qualified provision. I am not free to kill who I please. I am not free to kill myself. I am not free to withhold basic human needs from my peers which would result in sickness and death. I am not free to recklessly pursue enjoyment at the risk of others. On the one hand, one who takes a life is never truly free of the consequences. On the other hand, when others are prevented from killing me I’m free to enjoy my life without fear.

The Third Law would be:

3: A Free Citizen may pursue what they deem to be the sources of their happiness, insomuch as that pursuit does not conflict with the first two laws.

               The unalienable Right to pursue Happiness requires a definition. Happiness can be many things. It can simply be that which makes us smile. It can be what gives our lives meaning. It can be our children, our toys, our past times, or our passions. It is impossible to pursue Happiness without Liberty. The freedom to act however I deem necessary free of fear to achieve Happiness is essential. Alternatively, the restriction of another’s liberty or taking of another’s life cannot and will not result in true Happiness.

               So, there you go. Next time you evaluate a law or political stance you should consider the 3 Laws. A Law which stresses liberty over life (such as Abortion) or happiness over liberty (Universal Healthcare) should be rejected by Free Citizens. Comments welcome.

House, MD.

I watch a lot of television. Often its just sports but I also watch movies and on very rare occasions syndicated programming. One particular show I can't get enough of is House. Simply put it is the best show ever. If you don't like Hospital dramas or witty characters or life and death situations you won't like it. I happen to like all 3, though I can't think of another Hospital drama I like. (Emergency wasn't all that bad and I do love Dr Who).

But those reasons aren't why House is so incredible. Its also not Hugh Laurie's unbelievable performance or the litany of memorable side characters throughout the series. Its not the great soundtrack or extremely sarcastic and modern sense of humor. Its not the imaginative yet usually realistic variety of ailments to be dealt with. Its the ideas.

Most shows that deal with a clash of ideas come off as pretentious or pedantic. House in my opinion, is neither. The viewer loves Greg House despite his many evident failings. However, in most cases, its not his actions which are meant to be embraced. Sure, its supposed to be cool how maverick he is and how courageously independent he is in the face of whatever or whoever happens to be telling him what to do. Instead, its the underlying, philosophical, dare I say presuppositions, which the viewer is carefully, but hardly subtly, fed.

Let's pretend there's really a person named Gregory House. He's really a doctor. A man sworn to do everything in his power to enhance the quality of life of the people around him. A man who has devoted his life to the study of the preservation of life. Let's pretend, like our show's authors do, that this man has a better grip on man's inherent sinfulness than many preachers. Why would he be a doctor? Why would a natural pessimist, a naturalist pessimist, devote himself to helping the very people he understands are naturally bad? In a recent episode he explains everyone lies and the only time you get to the truth is when death is imminent. He is both excusing lying to that person to get them to tell the truth while explaining why lying about the person's impending death is essential to get the truth from them. Deep. In any case, a doctor would have to have a reason to care about the truth. Take the happy ending out of the story and you lose the reason to tell it.

That's where it gets interesting. In the same episode our character affirms he is a naturalist. He states that any out-of-body experiences while practically dead are merely the remaining energy firing through the brain and optical nerves. Another character presses him on it and he states he chooses to believe that because he doesn't want this life to merely be a test. Why? Because he knows he'd fail. He knows we'd all fail. He knows he already failed.

I know I'm reading into things a bit when I'm dissecting the psychology of a TV character. In some shows a character's beliefs change as often as their clothes. Not House's. A consistent theme is humanities' depravity. House is always assuming the worst and being right most of the time. An important secondary character represents vice for several seasons. Another represents depression and the suddenness of death. Another represents the fragility of life and time. All of these themes painted in the dismal light of depravity are really horrid. Suicide, murder, drug addiction and serial cheating are not viewed as abnormal. They are what makes us human.

Why do I care? Well, I like to think hard about stuff most people just say, "Wow, that's deep stuff." But also, do you see how close our mythical doctor is to the truth? He knows what's wrong he just doesn't have the solution. He can't get there with a differential diagnosis. All the Holmesian logic in the universe won't result in God. And that's why he won't go there. That character in the TV show is the naturalist you work with, who is just trying to make now count because they don't believe in "next."

There is no equation to find God. To find God you need faith. House is a Rationalist, he can't believe in faith because it means he can't do it himself. Do you see the tragic circle? Someone who is so in tune with his own inability to achieve a goal, instead of looking for help he wishes away the need to achieve that goal. "I am incapable of perfect therefore there is no perfection."

At the risk of sounding pretentious and pedantic, let me challenge you to think about the shows you watch. Do they confront you with ideas? Do they make you think?


Braves still looking strong. Beachy has been steadily better since returning from the DL, Uggla and now probably Pastornicky on the DL themselves meaning maybe some Simmons-Janish glove work up the middle which could make for some sweet highlights. Could also mean a deal for a second baseman could be in the works.
Current lineup is pretty frickin beast tho:

Heyward-Justin-Freeman-CJ-Mac-Gattis-PJ-Simba-Pitch

(I'd play Gattis in left and JHey in center, BJ or Schafer enter as defensive replacements late in games we lead or close games)

The Kingdom of Heaven

Some thoughts, though not organized well because sometimes I just need to ramble.

Seemingly contradictory statements in Scripture are where most of the major Christian controversies are born. The most discussed in Evangelical circles are Calvinism vs Arminianism, the Atonement, and the Kingdom. The first two I may devote a post or series of posts too in the future, but today I'd like to tackle the third.

The contradictions that introduce the argument come straight from the teachings of Christ, so suggesting that they truly are contradictions is a gross misunderstanding and near-blasphemous misrepresentation of Christ Himself. "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." beings several Parables which are given directly to His disciples. Couple those with the Sermon on the Mount and several statements Christ made to various people and you get a somewhat hazy but important theology of the Kingdom. Here's the Saxon Paraphrase Bible version.

So, open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 3...

John the Baptist is preaching and he says "Jesus is coming" but he uses the words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"

then in chapter 4

Christ preaches the exact same thing as John - "I'm here" but He also uses these words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"

chapter 5

He gathers a group of followers, people who were interested in Him because of His miracles, His words and probably curiosity. He describes to them how a Kingdom citizen is to live. He describes a moral person with a love for God and man. He describes someone interested in what God thinks and with a keen sense of the suffering of others. He describes someone who isn't selfish, isn't greedy, isn't blood-thirsty, and most of all isn't prideful. He uses contemporaries (the Pharisees) as an example of how not to be a Kingdom citizen. He is describing a culture, but a culture of ideas and paradigms not actions. When he says "blessed are the poor" He means "happiness comes from spiritual things, not material" when he says "love your enemy" he means "we are in a struggle for souls, not territory, we are not trying to conquer the world, we are trying to convert the masses". This is not a description of thousands of years from then. This is not Heaven in the sense of Zion with the elders, angels, beasts, and the golden streets. This is Heaven, Christ reigning over the people of His church, His own flesh and blood, the Body of the Living King. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

chapter 10

Christ commissions his "army" to go an preach the same thing "I'm here, your King has arrived" using those same words "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"

chapter 11

The Kingdom of Heaven is filled with Saints, and those Saints are the most valuable things in God's Universe

chapter 12

Christ casts out demons either by Satan (illogical) or by God (logical) and then draws the corollary that if it is by God then the Kingdom is here

chapter 13

starting at verse 24,

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a group of people, some of which are followers of Christ, some of which are not --- and they won't be separated until its time to judge finally.

now at verse 31,

The Kingdom of Heaven is greatness born out of small, specific actions, thoughts and ideas

verse 33

The Kingdom of Heaven should (and will) permeate every aspect of your life

verse 44 & 45

The Kingdom of Heaven should be valued above all else

verse 47

The Kingdom of Heaven will be purified, and the judgement will make sure of it -- this and the sower shows that at first it will not be pure, and that it will need to be purified

chapter 16

Here's where you've got some "contradiction"

Christ hands Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" (seemingly future tense) and then declares that those present will "not taste death till they see the coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom" (also seemingly future) I think these back me up from my previous claims in the Sermon on the Mount. Christ was telling them that His crucifixion, resurrection (the coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom) and Ascension were very near (even could be described as "at hand"), so near the listeners would not have time to die.

How do you describe getting saved to a 5 year old? Jesus Christ is coming to live in your heart.
What is He doing there? Reigning. Unlike the sin that before had "reigned in your mortal body" He is King now. The Church is His body and the Kingdom is then/now/then. Or as my dad says (he didn't originate it, just "bleeds it" haha) already, not yet.

So, am I an amillennial, Heaven Forbid! The same common sense approach to Kingdom teaching allows for a common sense Eschatology suggesting that when John describes a 1000 yr period of physical a Kingdom with particular defining aspects (such as Saints judging Angels, the reinstatement of Israel, the bodily reign of Christ in Jerusalem, the binding and eventual loosing of Satan and the final judgment) he isn't drawing pictures.


Next time, possibly I'll address missions in light of the Kingdom mandates, or not I'll see how I'm feeling.

Braves are going through a bit of an up and down stretch. JUpton is mired in a horrible slump which has countered the emergence of Uggla's and BJ's production. It is becoming evident that the reason the Braves are good is because their starting pitching is phenomenal. That leads to a difficult query - who does Brandon Beachy replace? BB was the staff ace, no doubt about it, before he had to get TJ. Now Minor is the 2nd or 3rd best lefty in the NL (Kershaw, Lee, Corbin and Minor is some order), Medlen is the guy who started 25 straight wins last year, Maholm has been stellar, Huddy is a future HoFamer and Teheran has given up more than 2 runs only 3 times over his last 9 starts. I hate to say it, but either Juilo gets sent down or Maholm gets traded, but we better get half the farm and an impact now reliever or Frank's got some 'splainin to do.

Participatory Government (UPDATE 6/5)

The following e-mail went out today to Senator Scott Fitzgerald, State Representative Mark Born, the Dodge County Supervisors and Horicon Alderperson Susan Hady. Parentheses have been added to explain things.

Senator Fitzgerald (Or Representative Born or Supervisors or Ma'am), 

*(Included only for the Alderperson) *You are receiving this message because 1) yours is the only e-mail address made public on the CoC's website and 2) there is no Aldermanic District Map for Horicon anywhere online so even if I could contact one of the others I wouldn't know who it concerned. Please disseminate at your discretion.* 

(Beginning of the other 3 e-mails)

My name is Lance Saxon. I am the Officer-in-Charge of the Lowell Post Office. I live on Lake St in downtown Horicon. I drive about 30 min (exactly 28) to work each morning and this drive includes crossing the Wisconsin & Southern Railroad tracks to get from one side of town to the other. There are 3 options which remain in Horicon city limits and all three cross the tracks, the north road (Lake St or Cty Rd B) the middle road (Hwy 33) or the southern road (Valley to Washington). If I choose to travel farther south out of town (Cty E to Cty S) I can avoid the tracks but add at least 20 min to my trip.

Why should I be avoiding the tracks? Because I, in the mornings and evenings delivering pizzas, have been stopped at those tracks anywhere from between 4 min to a whopping 25! (Really, it sucks) Not only do trains cross the road there but the switch is located a few feet from the intersection so any track switching results in a train being parked, not moving, on the road while the technicians switch the tracks (technicians is being generous, guys in shorts with beards is more exact). This wouldn't be a big deal if the traffic on this road was light, however it is a MAJOR TRUCKING VEIN (yes I capitalized in the Senator's e-mail). This is insane (yep, said it). Semis and commuters alike sitting and watching as train technicians fumble with switches losing valuable time and gasoline (in that order). Not only the wait time, but the congestion created can make a 5 min jaunt from the center of town to the intersection with 26 on the western edge take 30 solid min. (while my whole trip should take that long)

Solutions? I only can conceive of a few and they sound costly. A bridge of course would allow traffic to flow continuously without bothering the operations at WI&SOU (I shudder at the cost however). Another possible solution would be posted times that the different intersections would be blocked allowing drivers the option to divert their paths, something which I have searched for in vain (it doesn't exist, and it would take a miracle to even try to make one, trains are ridiculously unpredictable...seems like they should be on a schedule but whatever). If you and your people can come up with any others, I for one would support them wholeheartedly.

In any case, thank you for your time and I appreciate any effort you put into solving this frustrating issue. I have sent similar messages to Senator Fitzgerald, Representative Born and the County and City leadership to whom it may concern. (I edited the list at the end depending on the recipient)

Sincerely,

D Lance Saxon Jr. (The "D" makes me look important)

UPDATE as of 1:30 5/30/13:I received the following e-mail from the Dodge County Board Clerk... 

Mr. Saxon:  I have received your letter addressed to the County Supervisors and will read it at the County Board meeting on June 18^th.  I will await further direction from County Board Chairman, Russell Kottke.  Thank you.

Karen J. Gibson

Dodge County Clerk

UPDATE: Received 6/3 from Representative Mark Born

Hi Lance,

I have spoken to the WI Department of Transportation about the train switching issue. Concerns over the railroad have been elevated due to the Lake Street bridge closure. Unfortunately, the DOT does not have authority over the railroad and the timetables are determined by when the trains can get in/out of Chicago.  

Wisconsin Southern recently met with the Horicon public works supervisor and the police chief. They will try to be more cooperative in the future and block the roadway less frequently, especially during peak times. We are continuing to explore possible solutions to this issue and I will keep you informed if there are any new developments.

Best,

John Cronin

Office of Rep. Mark Born

39^th Assembly District

Recieved Yesterday 6/4, seen today 6/5 from Senator Fitzgerald's office.

Block, Cindy <Cindy.Block@legis.wisconsin.gov>	4:13 PM (17 hours ago)
to me

Lance, thanks for your email.  You may have already heard from Rep. Born on this issue – he has taken the lead in working with the DOT on the train switching issue and will keep you updated.  Sen. Fitzgerald has spoken with Rep Born and has also contacted the DOT on this issue and is aware that Wisconsin Southern recently met with the Horicon Public Works Supervisor and the Police Chief.  According to the Mayor and the Dodge County Highway Commissioner, everyone is working together to try and ease the situation.  Cindy Block/office of Sen. Fitzgerald

SeFrom: Sen.Fitzgerald
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 10:48 AM
To: Block, Cindy
Subject: FW: Question from Horicon

A New(?) Approach to Missions

If you talked to me for any amount of time about my goals in life you've heard about this. I still haven't found another person/group that is doing it this way, except in a history book. Doing things the same way over and over again and expecting different results is a classic definition of insanity. Its also on of the most frustrating tenets of traditionalism. "It was good enough for _______ its good enough for me!" (usually emphasized with hearty "guffaw"). I bristle at such inane argumentation and instead pursue the novel and creative ways to accomplish my goals. This concept is as such. If you are aware of someone doing things this way please let me know, I'd love to get in contact with them. Anyway, here's how I think missions should be done.

First, get schooled. None of this backwoods "all I need is to be able to read my Bible" stuff. Take advantage of other people's work. Learn how to do your own work. Learn the original languages even if you don't do the balance of the preaching. Don't stop at an undergraduate degree especially if its from ________ Bible College. You need more.

Second, get a team. Don't go by yourself. You're not Hudson Taylor, you're not Amy Carmichael don't try.

-- Philosophical interjection: When discussing a method for anything Utilitarianism is the word on the street. We're looking for what works. --

Get a group of people, families and singles, that are committed to the ministry and committed to the method. A group that has received the call of God on their life and has been commissioned by a local body of believers. The ideal team in my opinion is 3 families and 2 singles/retired people. I'll say more about this.

Third, pick a specific target group. Jews? Not specific enough. Jews in Germany? Closer. Jews in Berlin and the surrounding area? Better. Jews in _______ section of Berlin? Perfect. This allows you to fashion your ministry for that group's needs. Yes, all people need ministers but ministers cannot focus on all people. My Pastor is specifically called to Columbus and the surrounding area. He doesn't concern himself with the day-to-day workings of the underground church in China. Can he help them? Of course. But his personal ministry is specific. Therefore he can pour his life into us and be effective. There are seeming exceptions (John Piper) but they still have specific ministries merely with more scope.

Fourth, support yourself. Up to this point, most people are doing what I'm suggesting. Here is the shake up. Don't go on deputation. Go to college. Huh? How will you garner support? How will you gain valuable experience? How will you get 12 kids? (just kidding). Remember the team? 3 families and 2 others. Each piece has a role to play. Family 1 gets a full-time job in the field and lives on 60% of it. Family 2 gets a full-time job and lives on 60% of it. Other 1 gets a part-time job and lives on it plus church support. Other 2 gets a part-time job and lives on it plus church support. Family 3 lives on 30% of Family's 1&2 while being full-time in the ministry. The remaining 100% is for the ministry. Sending churches for each send enough to fill-in the gaps. If everybody needs 80% of Family's 1&2 to live and a part-time job is 50%. The sending churches (preferably at least 2 but up to 4) send 100% (from 50% to 25% each) of a year's wages to be divided up, 50% to Family 3 and 25% each to the Others.

Are you familiar with the Moravian Church? They were missionaries in Western Europe that used this system. 3 men would enter an area, one would be a barrel maker, one would be a blacksmith and one would preach. The preacher would live on the other two's incomes. Why? Because the 5 years spent on deputation (your average these days) could be spent getting a Masters Degree. Because a business man with a 40 hour a week job will have more credibility than a religious nut being supported wholesale by a bunch a radicals thousands of miles away. I'm not saying any missionaries currently supported wholesale by a group of churches is a religious nut, I'm saying they can look like they are. A job visa is easier to come by in most cases and much easier to hold for longer periods of time. Finally, once the ministry is self-supporting and native they become a partner in the process. This is common but extremely effective in my opinion both for the health of the native ministry and for the missionaries.

Sound good? This is precisely what I want to end up doing. At this point I want to be Family 1, but things can change. If you want to be on a team together let me know.

Braves lost two in a row after winning 8 straight. Losing 4-3 in the 1st in Toronto as I type. Going to see Oakland @ Milwaukee next Tuesday, will be Chipper's first game...can't wait. Will have a "Bonus Post" from the game on the 5th.

Postmodern Utilitarian Pragmatic

 After many discussions with my Premodern Neo-Platonic bother I have decided to start putting down what I think about stuff. 

"Thinky" stuff.

Mostly for my own benefit as I often have a great answer for one of his arguments and then forget it an hour later, but also to point others to in case the need were to arise.

So I'll start with a Philosophical introduction of myself.

I am a Radically Conservative Postmodern Utilitarian Pragmatic Christian Independent Baptist.

Let's break that down a little.

Radical - I tend to be 100% into things. To "nerd" them if you will. Anything from Sports to Music to organizing my wife's medical bills. All the other qualifiers (Conservative, Postmodern...etc) are increased in magnitude by this radicalism. In other words, I am Radically Christian, Radically Utilitarian and Radically Radical. This not only describes my fervor but also the tendency for my "positions" to be less than mainstream. Fringe may be too strong of a word, but in many ways it is apropos. This also gives me the freedom to distance myself from less-than attractive adherents to any one of the above descriptors. Many pragmatists are not my allies, but I can call my self a Pragmatic because I am a radical.

Conservative - I am historically aware. I am politically red and I am theologically narrow. My radicalism is tempered by a desire to be in-line with THE Standard. This balance will be the topic of many posts in the future.

Postmodern - I reject the notion, that in the created realm, apart from God's direct impact, there is a perceivable absolute truth. Here my bother and I part ways, goofy kid. Keep this is mind if you intend to engage me, I will look for inconsistencies, because I feel they are the building blocks of the universe.

Utilitarian Pragmatic - These are so very closely related, I thought I'd join them together. It works better that way and accomplishes my purpose which means its a good idea.

Christian - I believe I was born in direct rejection of the Supreme Being, my Creator, God (Yahweh, Jehovah as described in the Bible). That He was fully just in destroying me, even deciding not to create me, but instead chose to give me life. In doing so, He demonstrated both His power over me and His love for me. I am not a Christian because I want to be, though I desperately do. I am a Christian because that's who I am made to be.

Independent Baptist - Very specific terms regarding my theological leanings, though they are derived from the same philosophical base as my political leanings. Freedom and Life are the two highest goals of a human being. Your definitions of those words determine everything.


So there you go. Next post (Tuesday or Wednesday next week) will be on Relativism. (MY FAVORITE)