Adonnis®

purveyor of love and proprietor of songs™ - A world-class performing act and archetype engaged to the craft of songwriting and recording arts - Adonnis.com - Instagram/Twitter @adonnis

[adonnisism]

Now available on all digital music services

[adonnisism]

In honor of #nationaldogday - I’ve decided to announce ...no, proclaim ... that my next album will be ‘Adonnis Raps’ and it will be available by the end of this year

On the cover with me is Marsha, she is a Bull Terrier and a good friend

Below are some links where you can find my works

YouTube.com/Adonnis

SoundCloud.com/adoNNis

Yours truly,

adonnis

[adonnisism]

No one talks more passionately about their rights than those who, in the depths of their soul, doubt whether they have any

#ADONNIS

[adonnisism]

HELICOPTERS FOR EVERYONE

[adonnisism]

#Capitalism is cooperative trade between an infinite amount of producers coming together in cooperative unison to meet consumer needs #Socialism is indoctrinated servitude and economic oppression.

Adonnis

[adonnisism]

Political pundits vs. Lobbyists

When you can't make it as a lobbyist you become a pundit . . lot easier to introduce narratives to the public than to make a sale. The narratives are usually based in the intentional misdirection of logic. The points they make will fall apart under any amount of scrutiny, starting with a fact check. Statements of shock value tend to disarm intellect. Some will accept these intellectually dishonest statements because when judgement is clouded by bias or agenda we completely lose the sense of clarity that we strive for. 

Pundits are actors, they use the same talent agencies as actors - for example Van Jones is represented by CAA. They come in to say what you want them to say, usually a shock statement. They make the clip and they play it on CNN between commercial breaks to maintain viewership. Just like an ESPN highlight It’s important to remember this when watching CNN, Fox News, InfoWars or The Young Turks

[adonnisism]

Scientific Theory vs. Theoretical Science

This is why the word "theory" is more often dismissed than "study". "That's just a theory" is more often used then"that's just a study". People are more dismissive of what you say is a theory compared to what you point to in a study - making your view in the word itself one that requires an explanation that renders it an ineffective use of language. You'd be much better off to misattribute the word "Fact" to anything you have empirical evidence for. Which only implies that you accept it as a fact until it's proven not to be.

If you look up the word "Theory" you'll notice the synonyms include "hypothesis" and "conjecture" - we naturally equate the word theory with "assumption based without out evidence" For you to make an efficient use of language - to be concise without the burden of explanation - you have to use "scientific theory" which differs from the literary version and public perception of "theory" But I still elect that the general perception of the word "Theory" outside of the scientific community is going to be used to negate the validity, even if in a subconscious level. Just as the word "Pseudo" negates science in the word "pseudoscience" as that word typically is used in a disparaging way to dismiss somebody else's thought. If somebody is not willing to think a concept through they may have an aversion to thinking. As we see there is a deviation in definition between the scientific community and the general public. When you accept the definition of a community, it may be best to go into that community. 

 Then there's the divide eternal "theoretical science" and "experimental science" which is what I imagine is the basis for the infighting in the scientific community. The notion of logical people letting an intellectual debate devolve into a physical fight is certainly an affront to science itself , unless we're referring to Darwinian biology. If we accept words as they stand then the suffix of "ology" implies the "study of" Which is my case (the case of a literary) for hypothesis being the most important part of science. And that's why an idea can be the most important thing a person has to offer a society. This coming from someone who spent the last week defending the "explanation" of an idea, but empirical evidence would offer the most viable defense to support an explanation

“Theory” and “Scientific theory” are entirely different things that could not be more evident than the dichotomy present in the phrases “Scientific theory” and “Theoretical science”  

[adonnisism]

The prospect of tomorrow's technological singularity, artificial superintelligence and workforce automation require viable solutions today

Adonnis

[adonnisism]

Universal Income aka “Reverse-Tax-Credit”, Part II

The truth is technological advancement in way of automated machinery and artificial intelligence is just around the corner and there's going to be a day very soon where the human is no longer a viable member of the workforce. At that point it's going to take a different way of thinking if we are not to fall into a collapse that will allow an external interests to seize our means of production in the name of offering a solution. I'm well-rounded in economic study and the past I made concerted effort to avoid this concept because I have an aversion to anything that inhibits freedom. Where personal freedom exists there is economic freedom and economic freedom is a necessary prerequisite to personal freedom. Due to my aversion to the concept, universal income (or "reverse tax credit") wasn't a position that I learned. In fact, I had no preconceived thought of any explanation for it until I woke up 48 hours ago with a stream of thought on the subject. Not only might it be necessary at some point in the future but it is the only viable solution to eradicate a welfare system that implies that money is in better hands with the government who is, at this point, taking on the role of deciding on what's best for you when they spend it. Capitalism is a beautiful thing that has allowed more people to ascend the economic ladder than any concept in human history. The concept of universal income puts pads on the game and gives freedom of choice to engage in it if we wish. One might wonder if this leads a nation of “Consumerists” There's two definitions of consumerism, one referring to the protection and promotion of the consumer - and such implies a regulation of some sort, most often seen in the name of consumer safety. The consumerism I'm referring to is the preoccupation with acquisition of material items, a condition that undeniably a natural side effect of capitalism. Consumerism is the reason that shopping malls celebrate Christmas. It may not be the healthiest way to engage in capitalism, and it even carries a negative connotation, but it can only exist within the confines of capitalism. Universal income implies that the country is a market. In the modern economy the internet's biggest retailers have surpassed the biggest box stores, as a result these big box stores have adjusted their business models in an appeal to the evolving market. These online retailers simply charge a listing fee. If this listing fee were instituted at a government level it would be viewed as a tax. As of now ALL taxes are redistributed into the hands of government who takes on the role of allocating a portion of the funds in your best interests (or so they would like you to believe) - this is seen as the "Social contract", a concept only relevant in the justification of what government takes from you. The more it takes from you, the more it does to justify it. That's why taxes are taken in the name of programs. We want government to do less, because the best government is *mic to audience* "LESS GOVERNMENT!" By returning these funds to the citizens, it puts each citizen in the role of self-government as there's less money for big government. This effectively achieves what is known as a "minarchy", a minimalist government carrying limited roles of protection of the individual's rights and the upholding of law and private contracts. I would say "high-efficient" but there's much less to do because such a government's only legitimate institutions would be courts, police and a national defense. With less government: there's less incompetence, less inefficiency - implying a MAJOR tax cut to everyone involved. I've done the numbers and I can go through this line by line. Someday we will have a society of individuals who do not need to be governed. Until then this is the best way to achieve a smaller government.

[adonnisism]

In defense of universal income in a libertarian society

At this point in time I do not advocate the implementation of universal income but I constantly see the points that people miss in the arguments against the concept. So in the interest of the truth I offer a defense of universal income in the libertarian society because inevitably the time will come where automation will push many workers out of the work place and tyrannical socialism that amounts to a system of colonialism on a global level is a violent offense against freedom and civil liberty. So let’s just go over the points, I’m absolutely impartial to position. 

- Universal income  would allow equal opportunity to create wealth in the free market, whether by means of innovation or investment. Those who wish to compete in the game are free to choose - at a time when the human is no longer viable in the work force there should be no obligation to create a useless job and no competent market would allow that as it wouldn’t be sustainable without major subsidy or intervention.   -  Universal income incentivizes an economy of capitalist rather than an economy of consumerist. Business are still incentivized to innovate and compete for customers by offering a product of service. Disparity between demographics making innovation in the interest of all the only viable route for sustained business - Charging a minimal tax to businesses, would essentially be the equivalent of a listing fee to those who succeed in our market.  - Universal income allows for tax revenue to be placed in the interest of the people rather than handled for us by bureaucratic incompetence. Taxation - beyond what’s needed to operate a minimalist federal government whose only legitimate function would be the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud and whose only legitimate governmental institutions would be the military, police, and courts - is theft. To say that a majority of tax revenue is in better hands with the government is the antithesis of an argument for voter competence     . . . and most important about universal income: It makes Walt Disney out of Milton Friedman

[adonnisism]

Voluntaryism & Charity in a Libertarian Economy

I was asked a question about a restaurant that operates as a non-profit collective powered by volunteers. I was asked if this (business) model could be used on a bigger scale to facilitate government?  It was refreshing to hear from with someone honesty in assessment rather than an agenda that clouded their judgement- Aspire to intellectual consistency by seeking honest clarity over clouded agenda, you do that by starting with questions rather than answers - Aspire to intellectual consistency by seeking honest clarity over clouded agenda, you do that by starting with questions rather than answers A foundation owns the restaurant, personally I couldn't imagine a better route of business than to have a foundation that you administrate control the ownership of a business. Even a non-profit isn't sourcing all of it's business expenses to non-profits. Which means a separate LLC. can profit That's just me and by no means an allegation of wrongdoing, just a reality of the tax code Voluntary government can exists. I believe that many city council members are volunteers as are parents involved in their local school's PTA. Now are tax revenues going to be as plentiful if they were voluntary? Likely not - because now you would have to sell them on the idea like every other business would. Under the proposed system of voluntaryism there is the benefit of government operation having less of a financial cost. The only question to answer to is the lessened scope of effectiveness that would come from lessened tax revenue. One might argue that the scale would be so lessened that it would make less more sense for consumers to contribute directly to the options available in the free market but - perhaps such a government of  voluntaryism could function on a more limited scope as a charity to compete with the free market. Much easier to accomplish on a smaller scale. The larger the scale of government the larger the scale of cost.. Certainly a concept that could be put forth when libertarianism is answering for the lack of social programs

[adonnisism]

We have a society of people that see no conflict of interest in allowing lawyers to become politicians to create laws

[adonnisism]

John Lennon

Today, December 8th, marked the anniversary of John Lennon's death. He is one of the greatest songwriters of all-time and has written some of the greatest songs ever written. His writing and recordings combine to represent the highest form of human achievement in recorded media, responsible for over a billion sales in less than half a century, a testament to his legacy. The cultural relevance of his work will rival religious texts such as the Bible, Torah and the Quran, granting merit to one his most controversial statements that "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus". Time will tell as there's no way to compare relevancy sustained through half a century to relevance sustained through multiple millennia. It's important to remember that Jesus was not a Christian, Buddha was not a Buddhist and Mohammad was not a Muslim - their message was love

[adonnisism]

IQ tests amount to an immersion into the realm of self-indulgence but I find them to be mentally stimulating because of the sense of urgency created (timing is factored). All my life I've looked at information and interpreted it via quantifiable, logistical and reasonable assessment. I believe in my own brand of theoretical science that I've affectionately coined #Adonnisology which takes into account a belief that our life amounts to a series of experience that accumulatively shape our perspective, that we subjectively interpret after a quantifiable and logistical assessment of perception, which in turn amount to the growth of our reasoning skills. We use our senses to interpret the physical world as a combination of information and environmental stimuli and make assessments on a subconscious level and even if you're not aware of it there's a series of calculations going on in your brain at all times. You can improve your ability to make these calculations.

[adonnisism]

A ramble on: GMO, chemical fertilizers and greedy tobacco companies entering the emerging legalized industry of cannabis horticulture

Polonium 210 is a fertilizer/pesticide that, when implemented into tobacco farming in the early 1900s, had a direct effect on the rise of cancer rates associated with cigarette smoking. It wouldn’t be hard to make an argument to connect this to the contribution of the medical industrial complex. - I would like to see the lung cancer rates in Cuba Nonetheless I think such a practice would be hard to implement in the cannabis community because of the enthusiasts and passion for horticulture - the standard is set pretty high and it would be hard for a Phillip Morris to sell anyone in California on lowering that standard - if that were their agenda in the industry they may look into pushing for nationwide legalization so that a lower quality standard could be pushed in places that aren't as likely to be exposed to a prevalence of high quality product. To combat this amount of passion in the industry Philip Morris could go state of the art, industrial aeroponic system with rotating sunbeam high-pressure sodium lights supplemented by the extra spectrum of LED lights in a mass scale warehouse with optimal climate control This is ultimately where capitalism self-regulates . . one would like to argue that the greedy corporation comes in and takes over but the inherent law of capitalism dictates that the best quality product for the best price will win over the consumer. To compete they would have to up their standard or greatly undercut the price point and hope to push that on the consumer. This proved to be a failing endeavor for the Mexican drug cartels who’ve seen a shrinking piece of the market share due to legalization, they didn’t move in and take over - they couldn’t compete with entrepreneurs who offered passionate product. The cannabis industry, emerging by way of the black market, is an example of an industry that benefitted by the lack of government regulation. Proving that a healthy free market will not only exist without government, but in spite of government.  Back on topic, I wouldn't conflate the tobacco farming industry with the food farming industry but that would be a viable shock statement in debate. 

[adonnisism]

Anarcho-Capitalism or Communist-Anarchy?

Somehow, someway . . someone is going to have to explain to me how communist-anarchy and/or anarcho-capitalism are possible when anarchy implies the dissolution of the state - perhaps they just mean “chaos and lack of order” when they say anarchy, because the system of communism or capitalism can’t exist without the mediation of a state an·ar·chism ˈanərˌkizəm/Submit noun belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. At which point taxation is no longer compulsory. I’d imagine someone with such primitive understanding of economics is going to put forth the idea that the printing currency of could be used in place of taxation, the issue is the such a currency would be completely devoid of value and to expect anyone to work for it would be a futile effort, which would require the next step - which is really just more honesty in what they hope to achieve - slavery 

In closing: When people say they are a socialist-anarchist or a progressive-anarchist, it implies that they haven’t thought their position through. Any progressive program or any full on socialism requires a state, which is the exact opposite of what anarchism implies. They either haven’t thought things through or they’re thinking beyond all of us and realize that voting for progressivist/socialist agenda and banking on the fall of system is the quickest way to reach anarchism. However you’re likely just going to end up bailed out by a globalist technocratic state that operates similar to to colonialism on a larger scale

[sovietspacedogs]

So yeah you’re definitely 100% correct on “anarcho” capitalists being wrong in regards to having stateless capitalism bc stateless capitalism would be literal chaos with no legal body to enforce a set currency, social services, a minimum wage, private property, ethical business practices, bailouts, etc etc.

Whereas communist anarchists (or simply anarchists) believe in an anti capitalist, anti-state, moneyless, classless society where the workers own the means of production–the same exact goal of other communists. The only differing thing about anarchists is we don’t trust in or acknowledge the legitimacy of a transition state to move us to full communism, rather dissolution of state and capital should be simultaneous–which has sparked a literal century and a half long debate since Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin that i really dont want to repeat and continue here if ya dont mind.

Theres some history in anarchist/stateless communist practice like the communes in revolutionary catalonia, las zapatistas in modern mexico, ukraine’s free territory, the democratic confederalist efforts in Rojava today, and some others.

There are also indigenous societies whose organizing closley resemble forms of “natural” communism, like the Semai of Malaya, the Mbuti of Africa, the San People, the Imazhigen of Morocco, the Iroquois Confederacy to some extents. And no, just because these are “primitive” examples (even though most of these societies still exist today), that doesnt mean their societal structures can’t be replicated to fit modern standards.

[adonnisism]

If you wish to create such a community on small-scale in a voluntary-basis a free society would allow such an endeavor. The only subject of regulation to the scale would be your own management of such community. In regard to capitalism, capitalist exchange has always existed - before there was a name for it and before there was a government and had continued to exist “in-spite of a government” - Without government capitalism CAN exist, communism requires some form of oversight and such a system would arguably considered a government, defying the principles of an anarchic society. As long as the individual is free to choose there is no moral objection. In fact, outside of federal income tax or an exemption under tax code, there’s nothing stopping you from freely engaging in construction of such a community right now.  Thank you for your response, it’s great to hear ideas. 

[sovietspacedogs]

Capitalism is a 200-300+ year invention whereas humanity has existed for 250,000 years. To say trading/bartering is proof of capitalism existing since the dawn of humanity is as logical as me saying the act of sharing is proof of communism existing for that long too.

What makes something “communist” or “capitalist” is when things in that society are organized to be “communist” or “capitalist.” Neither is an immortal or objective term or method to describe all economic, social, and political interactions universally in all places at all times in all of history. For those who say that capitalism is synonymous with “the economy” and believe that third-world or indigenous nations are “not capitalist yet” because they have a different method of economic organizing is blantantly revisionist.

I’m a lil rusty but didnt John Maynard Keynes say the same thing–that capitalism requires a state or regulating force to function properly so we won’t have great depressions every other decade (im exaggerating but yeah)? If we were to have stateless capitalism, we would have no social services that help the downtrodden get jobs to keep money in circulation, we wouldnt have an enforced currency, there would be a $0 minimum wage (meaning there is no set standard to how much a worker gets paid per hour), there would be nothing to stop worker revolts if theres no police/military apparatus, monopolies and unregulated competition would drown out other businesses, there would be 0 bailouts from the government to vital businesses who’re in the red, and there’s plenty more legal, ethical, and logistical issues to name. If stateless capitalism could exist, it wouldnt last more than a few years before it collapses by its own contradictions, a mass worker’s strike, or develops a state apparatus to keep things in check.

As for communism, like the examples ive described, they were all stateless anti capitalist societies that made plenty of achievements like free health care, education, food, shelter, arms, etc. Everyone benefited and no one was another’s master. As for social and political organization on the large scale in a communist society, citizens in all districts would discuss what they wanted collectively and nominate a delegate to carry the district’s will and further discuss with other delegates to come to a unanimous agreement. Then those delegates would be recalled and society wide progress would pass. If the issue is district wide, the citizens themselves would organize to solve it.

Its a truly direct democracy where there is no bureaucracy, no state, no leader, and every citizen has a say in what they want. I’m not seeing whats so bad or “statist” about that.

Edit–the only reason why most of these examples failed was because of outside state and imperialist/capitalist aggression. They never collapsed internally.

[adonnisism]

First of all, I don’t like to start any of my days reading that something John Maynard Keynes corroborates with what I’ve said - I have a great respect for any mind that brings about a new school of thought but his theories of economics were, by his own admission, not meant to be permanent solutions but necessities to enable action against the Great Depression. His lessons have ultimately been a direct factor in the growth of the state by enabling further growth in government in place of accountability. This is especially troubling because the problems an oversized government creates can go without being addressed. Quite simply, if you can’t afford to operate anymore you manipulate the currency supply rather than ever addressing where the downsizing needs to take place to make your government’s operation more manageable. A free market would require you to address these concerns if you want to sustain existence. Keynesian economics is a perversion of capitalism that results in government interference in the free market, for every failure attributed. True capitalism can exist without a government, in fact, it exists in spite of the government.  As an anarchist in any sense I’d imagine this has to make you cringe as much as it makes me cringe. We both agree that government is too big and we defer on how we wish to for things  There’s no reason to fear the free market in the sense of wage, a worker’s value in job force is set by the market and unlike other systems the worker is free to engage freely in the agreement or disagreement with their employer. When you combined this government oversight and currency manipulation you have the holy trinity of rising costs and inflation. This also results in workers being priced out of jobs and when people are priced out of jobs the business is either required to develop shortcuts or pick up more of the workload - it’s no coincidence to see how quickly the advancement came about in restaurant automation technology over the last few years. A job that has a minimum wage associated with it is not suppose to be a career, going into subjective territory but I’d say it’s safe to say that you should want more out of life. 

It’s never right to force anything upon anyone else, no matter how badly you want to. If it’s not voluntary it’s essentially indentured servitude. If this sounds like a defense of capitalism it’s because of my reluctance to attack communism - Not to say that you’re attacking capitalism it just seems that your questions are based in a misrepresented view on capitalism. I’m not sensitive about these issues in any regard but I need to know that you share the same affinity for open mind discussion before we go into this, it’s not my intention to just pick apart your ideal system - and from what you describe it does sound like a system as opposed to a society devoid of a system. If you would like to talk about your idea of a solution to a better system I offer you a free platform where you will not be judged by bias, I truly condemn partiality as the road to stagnation and with an open mind I celebrate any result of a discussion where I’ve been afforded the opportunity to evolve my positions or learn something new. My only allegiance is to truth and I hope we can share that.

[adonnisism]

Anarcho-Capitalism or Communist-Anarchy?

Somehow, someway . . someone is going to have to explain to me how communist-anarchy and/or anarcho-capitalism are possible when anarchy implies the dissolution of the state - perhaps they just mean “chaos and lack of order” when they say anarchy, because the system of communism or capitalism can’t exist without the mediation of a state an·ar·chism ˈanərˌkizəm/Submit noun belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. At which point taxation is no longer compulsory. I’d imagine someone with such primitive understanding of economics is going to put forth the idea that the printing currency of could be used in place of taxation, the issue is the such a currency would be completely devoid of value and to expect anyone to work for it would be a futile effort, which would require the next step - which is really just more honesty in what they hope to achieve - slavery 

In closing: When people say they are a socialist-anarchist or a progressive-anarchist, it implies that they haven’t thought their position through. Any progressive program or any full on socialism requires a state, which is the exact opposite of what anarchism implies. They either haven’t thought things through or they’re thinking beyond all of us and realize that voting for progressivist/socialist agenda and banking on the fall of system is the quickest way to reach anarchism. However you’re likely just going to end up bailed out by a globalist technocratic state that operates similar to to colonialism on a larger scale

[sovietspacedogs]

So yeah you’re definitely 100% correct on “anarcho” capitalists being wrong in regards to having stateless capitalism bc stateless capitalism would be literal chaos with no legal body to enforce a set currency, social services, a minimum wage, private property, ethical business practices, bailouts, etc etc.

Whereas communist anarchists (or simply anarchists) believe in an anti capitalist, anti-state, moneyless, classless society where the workers own the means of production–the same exact goal of other communists. The only differing thing about anarchists is we don’t trust in or acknowledge the legitimacy of a transition state to move us to full communism, rather dissolution of state and capital should be simultaneous–which has sparked a literal century and a half long debate since Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin that i really dont want to repeat and continue here if ya dont mind.

Theres some history in anarchist/stateless communist practice like the communes in revolutionary catalonia, las zapatistas in modern mexico, ukraine’s free territory, the democratic confederalist efforts in Rojava today, and some others.

There are also indigenous societies whose organizing closley resemble forms of “natural” communism, like the Semai of Malaya, the Mbuti of Africa, the San People, the Imazhigen of Morocco, the Iroquois Confederacy to some extents. And no, just because these are “primitive” examples (even though most of these societies still exist today), that doesnt mean their societal structures can’t be replicated to fit modern standards.

[adonnisism]

If you wish to create such a community on small-scale in a voluntary-basis a free society would allow such an endeavor. The only subject of regulation to the scale would be your own management of such community. In regard to capitalism, capitalist exchange has always existed - before there was a name for it and before there was a government and had continued to exist "in-spite of a government" - Without government capitalism CAN exist, communism requires some form of oversight and such a system would arguably considered a government, defying the principles of an anarchic society. As long as the individual is free to choose there is no moral objection. In fact, outside of federal income tax or an exemption under tax code, there’s nothing stopping you from freely engaging in construction of such a community right now.  Thank you for your response, it’s great to hear ideas.