My latest book can be read here for free. The only book I made free of cost because of the extreme importance of the subject and the number of people effected. I have witnessed a tragedy on a massive scale, and this book describes it in only 37 brief pages. Read it. Your values and thoughts may never be the same again. Here it is:

The Man That Shot The Law

A Tale Of The Horrors Of Logic


Jamil Kazoun

(Jamil Talaat Malak Sukkarieh Kazoun)

Copyright © Jamil Kazoun, 2019. All Rights Reserved

Version 1.4.7

September 21, 2019

This book is free of cost to the public, and is placed in the public domain to read and listen to as audio, to freely distribute or reproduce, as is, without modifications or additions, or removing the author’s name or right of attribution. This book contains adult language (minor cuss words for attention, such as yelling when a baby is about to fall into a water pool or touch fire ) and is for mature audience.

Suppose you were driving a car and came to a fork in the road — one road to the left and one road to the right — and only one of these two roads would take you to your destination, and you did not know which road to take. Now, assume that there are one hundred law-makers standing at the fork of the road, and they decide to help you find your way to your destination. So you ask them: Which way do I go? Left or right? Two options. And fifty percent of the law-makers decide you should go right, and fifty percent decide you should go left.

The information they provided has zero value because the number of people telling you to go left equals the number of people telling you to go right. It is like tossing a coin, and your decision is purely based on 50-to-50 percent chance of luck and not based on intelligence. The number telling you to go left equals and cancels the number telling you to go right. If the total number of people involved were 2, 100, or one million, as long as fifty percent say go one way, and the other fifty percent say go the other way, the numbers cancel each other and their collective advice has no value. The information value of this vote is zero, and also is the Certainty Value of this vote being equal to zero. The vote gives no certainty as to how to proceed, zero certainty. Here I have used the terms, “information value”, and “certainty value”, to describe some qualities of this vote.

Instead of the choices being go left or go right, if it were a vote in parliament or congress on a subject, and the two choices were “yes” in favor of a proposed law, or vote “no” if you oppose, then the same logic applies. An example is law makers deciding on a proposed law to ban cigarettes. 50 percent of law makers vote “yes” and 50 percent vote “no”. In mathematics, the formula is simple: numbers voting “yes” minus numbers voting “no” equals The Amount Of Difference between the two groups voting. The vote result is zero in this case. It is typical to describe the result of such a vote in congress as a 50%-50% vote, but this is extremely misleading because the total tally of the vote is zero. A vote by a person has “a value and has a direction”. The value of a YES vote is +1, which is a value one pointing in the positive direction. The value of a NO vote is -1, which is a value of 1 pointing in the opposite direction, which is 180 degrees opposed. It is like a rope game with two groups opposing each other pulling on the rope to see who will win. One person’s power on one side equals 1 in value, and the other person pulling in the opposite direction has power that equals -1. So at 50 persons on one side and 50 persons on the other side, the result in power is zero. It is not good to describe the total result as 50-to-50. When adding votes, it is important to add an opposing vote as a negative number, and the total count of the vote becomes zero. The opposing powers of 50 plus -50 totals 0 in value. They cancel each other and no one wins. So the vote (or advice) in this case provides no useful information on how to proceed, except that these people collectively have no good answer that we may use. So the vote results are useless.

What is extremely important and central to understand is this: it is not the number of people voting “yes” or “no” that matters, it is their true total that matters, or said in another way, it is the difference in numbers between the two groups that is important. This difference in numbers must be represented in percentage.

So no matter how we look at this kind of vote, where both opposing sides are equal in number, the results we get are zero:

- Zero for the “total count” of the vote

- Zero for the “physics power” of the vote

- Zero for the “information value” of the vote

- Zero for the “amount of difference” between the two opposing groups numbers

- Zero for the “certainty value” the vote provides

“Guidance” may be a good term to use because in life, we seem to be looking for guidance sometimes or giving guidance to our loved ones on how to proceed, go left or go right so-to-speak on many decisions.

From these facts, we can see that a 50% to 50% vote is the worst possible vote result a congress or parliament can have, because it gives no guidance on the issue voted on. It is the lowest absolute total count value possible with the lowest absolute vote certainty value. Therefore, such a vote is a zero on the scale of vote value and should be dismissed as not usable.

- From this lowest value point on the scale of vote evaluation, we start to move upward very slowly in the value and usability of a vote as we will see.

I should say a quick word here about the term “Certainty value” of a vote. When 50 people are telling you to go one way and the other fifty telling you to go the opposite way, how certain can you be of their combined advice? The answer is zero certain, because you do not have a basis on which to decide which one to choose. And making the wrong choice is making an error. And you do not know in this example how to avoid this error. That is what the term “certainty” refers to. Certainty is one word used to represent the opposite of randomness, as an antonym. Randomness is when you toss a coin, to decide which way to proceed on the road, and it has zero certainty about the choice, because it is based on a “random guess” that has no intelligence in it. At 50 to 50 vote, the randomness is maximum. So flipping a coin with 50%chance of getting HEADS is a similar result to such a vote result and is a bad way to make decisions on such matters, and that is the situation being practiced in congresses and parliaments as I will elaborate.

The word “difference” also means “different”. In life and learning or making decisions, the question we often ask is what is the difference between this and that? Between yellow and green? Between circle and triangle, between a high school graduate and a college graduate. Example: If you want to see a doctor. And two doctors are available and went to the same university and graduated at age 25 and received equal grades. But one doctor’s age is 25 and the other doctor’s age is 35. How do you choose between them? You may ask what is the difference between the first doctor and the second. One difference is experience. The first doctor’s age is 25 and he graduated at age 25, so he has zero years experience. The second doctor is 35 and graduated at age 25 so he has 10 years experience. So the question of what is different between the first doctor and the second is 10 years experience. Is this an important number? It is important because all other factors being equal, this doctor is probably better. If the first doctor was 27 years old, that means he had 2 years experience as a doctor. This may be better than zero experience but compared to 10 years experience, I may still prefer the second doctor. If the first doctor had 9 years experience, then it may not make much of a difference because they have nearly the same amount of experience. When choosing which of these two doctors is better, it is not the amount of experience each doctor has that matters in making a decision, but the “amount of difference” in experience between the two doctors. If the amount of difference is big, we choose the one with more experience, but if the amount of difference is zero or small, we may choose either doctor. Let us create a simple table of this situation:

The first doctor has 0 years experience minus 10 years experience by the second doctor equals 10 years difference.

The first doctor has 2 years experience minus 10 years experience by the second doctor equals 8 years difference.

The first doctor has 9 years experience minus 10 years experience by the second doctor equals 1 year difference.

We can understand in this case what is different between two numbers by using the difference operator which is subtraction. Then we look at this difference to decide. We ask if this difference is big, medium, small and how it effects the issues involved.

Going back to our law-makers’ voting example, and I will use the word vote and advice interchangeably, I ask: How do we choose which voting group has the better advice about road directions? The group voting “Yes” (go left) or the group voting “No” (do not go left)? I ask: What is different between a 50 percent “YES” and 50 percent “NO” vote? The answer is: no difference or zero difference in numbers. Their advice is useless as to how to proceed, left or right.

As soon as we move away from this lowest point on the voting scale, look what happens. If forty-nine percent had said you should take the right road, and fifty-one percent of them said you should take the left road, would you feel comfortable following the fifty-one percent group, even if it is a win for them? How much confidence would you have that fifty-one percent of the congressmen were correct? Not much! After all, the difference between the two groups equals 2 percent. 2 percent difference is an extremely small amount of difference and for all practical reasons can be considered to be the same as zero percent difference. If it happened that two percent of the congressmen had voted the other way, the fifty-one percent vote would have gone in the other direction and so would the advice. In other words, even if fifty-one percent are telling you to take the left road, the fifty-one percent are nearly equally likely to be wrong, as they are to be right. It is almost as if we are still in the 50-to-50 percent toss of the coin situation. We need a much bigger difference before we can start to think: maybe this groups really knows better than the opposing group. So immediately, the question of the size of the difference, the amount of difference, becomes the issue that gives us comfort in the advice’s accuracy. So a difference of 2 % is not important, but a difference of 30%, or 60% or 100% is increasingly better, and gives more and more certainty to you that these people know what they are talking about. So to summarize: We should desire or require to see a big amount of difference between the voting groups, when a vote is taken. The bigger this difference is, the higher is the level of certainty that the advice is useable. For example, if the vote was eighty percent “IN FAVOUR” of going left, and twenty percent ”OPPOSED”, you may start to feel more comfortable about taking the left road, and following the eighty percent, because looking at the amount of difference, of eighty percent in favour minus twenty percent opposed, we get a sixty-percent difference between the two views which is much better than zero amount of difference we had been talking about before. So the situation is improving for this man seeking advice, but is this enough improvement?

Let us stay with this example for a while. What if eighty percent of these congressmen said go left, and twenty percent opposed, but your final destination was only a coffee shop that was two hundred meters away? You would probably not be too concerned about how correct they are and about making a mistake, because the stakes are a lot lower. If the voters were wrong, about two hundred meters down the road you can make a turn, come back and take the other road. A small amount of gasoline and time spent. So you don’t think much about it. The cost of a mistake is low.

Now, let us assume instead that your destination is about two hundred kilometers away on a one-way road. Are you going to be quick to take the advice of the eighty percent of the congressmen telling you to take the left road? You may start to think: “What if the eighty percent are wrong?” Knowing the cost of making the wrong choice is higher, you are going to be very hesitant about taking their advice.

Now, let us assume that your destination is two hundred kilometers away on a one-way road, and you are going to a hospital because you just got a phone call that your mother is in the emergency room and may die in few hours if you cannot get to her. Now, which advice would you take on choosing the road? Imagine making such an important decision in life on a vote of eighty percent versus twenty percent. The amount of difference in this vote, the amount of sixty percent difference is no longer comforting. It no longer gives you enough certainty about how to proceed. Now you require more certainty from the vote. Now, you want these congressmen to tell you which way to proceed with 95% certainty level. Or much more comforting, because it is a life and death decision regarding your mother, you would like the vote to be 99% or best 100% certain. This is one of the most important facts you may need to remember in your life about decision making and about the law, law-making and voting. How in the world can you accept and have been accepting systems of governments that make decisions based on near zero certainty level of accuracy or two percent certainty level of accuracy, and are happy with that, when what you really want or should demand from people when making important decisions is for them to provide a high level of certainty of being correct in their advice, in their votes? How has this happened to you, to your neighbors, to your town and city fellow citizens, or your fellow countrymen, to you city hall representatives, and congresses and parliaments? Stop for a moment to absorb all this, if you can !!!!!!!!

I hope that you are starting to see the point. When you make a decision, it is most important that the decision have a high level of certainty of being accurate. And one way we measure this certainty level is not looking at the percentages of each group voting, but by looking at the amount of difference between the two voting groups. What is important is the percentage difference between those who are telling you to do one thing and those who are telling you to do the opposite, and we want this difference to be high enough, and ideally near 100% level. This difference is the certainty factor I define, and it is what we should look at or demand before we even know the subject matter of the vote is. We want the total vote count to be technical credible, as a first step in any vote. It is like going to a heart doctor for advice, and the very first thing you may want to know from the doctor is: Do you have a certificate of qualification from a medical institution that you are a qualified doctor or heart doctor? If not, you may immediately leave without further discussion to look for a qualified doctor. Similarly, when someone tells you there was a vote or advice vote on a subject, the first question to ask is: Did this vote have a high level of certainty numbers associated with it? If not, then the vote is not worth considering! Looking at your city hall, state hall, congress, or parliament, for an entire year’s period, how many votes were passed with a respectable certainty level, such as 100%, 99% or even 95%? It is possible that not a single vote did! It is interesting to do such surveys just to see how many laws passed with near zero level of certainty, and to tabulate the vote certainty levels. A revolution in politics and law may follow if citizens understood the implications.

1st Factor

When making a decision or giving advice using a voting process and you do not know all the variables involved, there is chance of making an error. We should ask:

Is it a must that a vote be taken? Or can the vote be delayed until more information is available?

What is the minimum certainty level of the vote that must be achieved for the vote to be accepted? If not accepted, the vote is dismissed.

When a decision has to be made in that environment and it is to be a group decision by a vote, and the only options for the vote are “Yes” or “No”, or “In Favour” or “Opposed”, then a reasonable formula I developed to measure the value of the vote is “ The Merit Of The Vote”.

The Merit Of The Vote I defined as: The percentage of those voting “in favour” minus the percentage of those voting “against”. At 50 percent YES against 50 percent NO vote, we get 50 minus 50 which equals 0, making the merit of this vote zero percent. This vote gives 0 guidance, level of certainty, (or information) on how to proceed. This zero percent merit is the lower bound on the merit scale. At 100 YES against 0 NO, we get 100 percent minus zero percent which gives 100 percent merit. This 100% merit is the upper bound of the merit scale. At 100% merit, the vote gives the maximum guidance (or information) possible on how to proceed. At 100% merit, we cannot do any better. The Merit Of The Vote says nothing about the subject content of the vote, and if the content is correct or not. The vote can be 100 YES against 0 NO, claiming the earth is flat, which is incorrect, but that is the best guidance (outcome) the voting system can produce. So we can have a vote with 100 percent merit, and still be 100 percent incorrect in content. Merit is related to the voter numbers, while law content accuracy is related to the subject of the law. The subject of the law voted on is something that voters may never be able to measure its correctness successfully. If we cannot know if the law’s content is accurate, what do we do? There is not much we can do except take some comfort by looking at the merit of the vote. It is an important technical measure that is independent of content and is very useful to give guidance when looking at a vote, but is not a complete solution. Therefore, from this argument, we can conclude that laws are inherently uncertain in their content accuracy, and uncertain in their vote accuracy, and we can only compute a statistical level of certainty, but it is statistical and probabilistic in nature, and this is the flaw of the law. So I will create a definition of “The Flaw Of The Law” to be this: We cannot measure the accuracy of a law, therefore, The Law Is Inherently Flawed And Is Damaging If Used For Justice, because “justice” by definition means accurate judgement.

If we cannot measure the exact accuracy of the law, then how can we allow it to exist? Logic says it should not exist. Some may argue that the law has benefits and costs, and we can try to balance these factors, but in this case, how do you calculate the cost to a particular citizen? The amount of the cost may be zero to one citizen, while it can be enormous to another citizen? How can you put this in your calculation? You will see later that it is not possible. So disposing with the law is a logical conclusion of these arguments. Let individuals resolve their problems as best they can and are able to without government interference, and let them make the errors themselves, not you.

In normal English language, when a person says “your argument has no merit”, it means your argument has no logic or little logic to support what you are proposing. So how can a law court accept to use a law that has less than 100% merit? Is the court a place of justice or a gambling shop? And how can a jury of people or a jury of judges accept their own vote result if it has less than 100% merit? It seems logical that either situation would be grounds to dismiss a case in the court.

Please take few moments to understand what you have just encountered in these previous few words. The ramifications are enormous. It is like for thousands of years, people believed the earth is flat and someone in few lines said “the earth is not flat, and here is why... “ it is a complete opposite of common knowledge and common practice.

Here is a (word) table for The Merit Of A Vote, for any vote and any subject:

• Zero percent in favour, minus, one hundred percent opposed, gives negative one hundred percent Merit, it means no Merit

• Ten percent in favour, minus, ninety percent opposed, gives negative eighty percent Merit, it means no Merit

• Twenty percent in favour, minus, eighty percent opposed, gives negative sixty percent Merit, it means no Merit

• Thirty percent in favour, minus, seventy percent opposed, gives negative forty percent Merit, it means no Merit

• Forty percent in favour, minus, sixty percent opposed, gives negative twenty percent Merit, it means no Merit

• Fifty percent in favour, minus, fifty percent opposed, gives zero percent Merit

• Sixty percent in favour, minus, forty percent opposed, gives twenty percent Merit

• Seventy percent in favour, minus, thirty percent opposed, gives forty percent Merit

• Eighty percent in favour, minus, twenty percent opposed, gives sixty percent Merit

• Ninety percent in favour, minus, ten percent opposed, gives eighty percent Merit

• One hundred percent in favour, minus, zero percent opposed, gives one hundred percent Merit

Before you proceed further in reading, make sure you understand this table, even if tentatively.

We can set threshold as to what is a low merit, a medium merit, an acceptable merit. For example:

If the merit of a vote is 0% to 95%, the vote has low merit, and the vote may be automatically rejected.

If the merit of the vote is 95% or higher, then the vote may be considered as having acceptable merit. There are other considerations such as the costs of making an error in the law, where the costs can be extremely high, and a higher certainty level may be demanded.

It is important to understand: Even when the merit of a vote is 100 percent, we still cannot be sure that the vote is a correct decision. Example: The congress may vote with 100% merit to assert that “the earth is flat” or to “require car drivers to wear helmets for additional safety”, but the vote content can be incorrect. What Merit Of The Law can mean in this bad case is: This is the best outcome the voting system can produce, and this outcome can be completely wrong sometimes. You can have congress full of uneducated individuals producing many votes with 100% merit, but the content of these votes can still be 100% incorrect. In this case, it would mean, making helmets a requirement on car drivers is a bad idea, or an error. Sure wearing a helmet adds extra safety to the car driver? But are you considering the visible and hidden costs to him in your decision? Are you thinking of the cost of the helmet, how inconvenient it is for him to wear inside the car, especially in hot weather, if it effects his hearing ability to hear warning sounds from outside, the height of the ceiling in the car? Does the congress now require having cars with higher ceilings? Etc. And why not force the driver to wear additional protective clothing. All these add extra safety to the driver? And why not require all passengers to wear helmets and special protective clothing? These measures all increase safety. The short answer is that “how much risk I take in my life is my own damn business and it is not your business, or any other voter’s business. If I want to sky dive, rock climb, parachute, white water raft, ride horses, ride motorcycles, skate board, swim in deep oceans, or what ever. You are not my father or mother and I am a mature adult, and mind your own damn business”. But at this stage, we are not discussing philosophy, but mathematics and logic, and I will continue.

Therefore, a few important questions to ask are:

Should we mind our own business and not interfere in others business?

Do we have the right to interfere in such issues? Who or what gives us such rights?

Must a decision be made on the issue, knowing that decisions can be incorrect?

The formula for the Merit Of The Vote formula is extremely simple to compute and use. It may be very wise to keep it this way. But we can modify the formula by adding cut-off points or threshold points and create weights. For example, we would not use the formula when the total number if voters is less than 30 people since the vote’s accuracy become difficult to measure according to some statistical theories. We can estimate the minimum number of people (sample size) needed for a vote to be acceptable based on statistics theories to be around 100 people. So the congress or parliament would be required to have a minimum of 100 members in it.

Regarding the sample size factor, here are some mathematical notes that you can skip over as technical but should be mentioned briefly:

a. For the number of people in the Congress, parliament, city hall, or company board directors, etc.: If we were assume that we will not rely on these people’s intelligence as a factor, this model becomes similar to a “fair coin toss model” for voting, and use the Central Limit Theorem and associated factors, such as Standard Deviation, and Standard Error, etc. then the sample size we use determines how much general error there is associated with this group. I will call this Standard Error for simplicity the “Organization Size Additional Error Rate”. This Organization Size Additional Error Rate is the same amount for every vote, and is in addition to the error of the specific vote under consideration. So for example, the U.S.A. Congress has a specific Organization Additional Error Rate number associated with it, as does the British parliament, as does the Lebanese or Indian or Italian parliaments.

2. Here are some examples:

a. Example 1: Congress or parliament has 100 members in it. This number of results in an “Organization Size Additional Error Rate” of 10% regardless of the future vote they will take. This error rate is independent of other factors and is in addition to the error that will be produced when they take a specific vote, and is used to adjust down the accuracy of this specific vote, because now we are dealing with two errors. One error comes from size of the group and one error comes from the vote count statistics. So we will have a 10% Organization Additional Error Rate and maybe 5 percent error from the specific vote. So now we can say that this congress or parliament has an “Organization Size Additional Error Rate” of 10%, and the Merit Of a specific vote is 95%, then we need to adjust this vote merit down by the Organization Size Additional Error rate. We adjust the Merit Of the Vote which is 95% by removing or subtracting 10% of its value and we get the result of 85%. The more errors there are in a process steps, the lower the certainty is after each step. Now the new formula for Merit Of The Vote gives the lower result of 85%. This is a more accurate way to measure the vote certainty level, but is slightly more complicated, because it adds one more step to the computation process.

b. Example 2: Congress or parliament has 1000 members in it. This number of people by formula results in an Organization Size Additional Error Rate of 2.2% associated with it regardless of the vote.

c. Example 3: Congress or parliament has 10000 members in it. The Organization Size Additional Error Rate is 1%.

You can see that for organizations with a large number of members, we can ignore this error factor, and remove it from calculations because it becomes too small. But for small organizations, it is very significant and should remain. For example:

d. Courts (such as the U.S.A. Supreme Court) or a board of directors in a company that has 9 members in it. The Organization Size Additional Error Rate is 33%. Imagine this error number for a court or supreme court! We will use this number later in an example.

This statistical formula seems logical on the face of it. It basically says, the more people are involved in a vote, the more accurate the results are likely to be, or saying it differently, the less error is likely to be, and this error cannot be illuminated. It is a mathematical reality of statistics. This is distressing when you talk about serious laws, and life and death issues because every 1% of additional error can be significant to consider.

Now, to illustrate this from real life examples, it is good to ask, would you go out driving your car, or be driven by someone who has an 80% certainty level that he will not get into an accident? I think not, because this means that 20% of the time driving he will be involved in accidents. Some car drivers go their entire life without having a single car accident, and many may have at most one or two accidents. Can you imagine how many accidents a car driver will have at 80% certainty or accuracy level, or the flip side of 20 percent error rate? Will he have 1 accident per day or per week? Very possible. So while an 80% vote, or 80% certainty level seems reassuring in a vote in congress, as a result of poor awareness of the mathematics of decision making, it is an extremely low level of confidence to live by on important issues. In matters of law, serious family issues, or judicial issues, we want to be certain with the advice before we feel comfortable and secure in proceeding. So when I say 80% confidence level is low, now you can understand why. A minimum of 95% may be required, and hire is better. Imagine doing a glaucoma eye surgery by three different doctors with 80%, 95%, and 99% chance of success. These same numbers mean 20% chance of failure or blindness, or 5% or 1% chance of blindness in the operation. Even at 1% chance of going blind can give you much pause, because of the serious consequences of failure or error. Laws and advice can involve very serious consequences to people, so how the hell can we and have been accepting for generations votes in law chambers having confidence levels of 1%, 10%, or 20% etc. These ill-educated people, including you and me probably until recently, have accepted such lunatic reality. It is lunatic, because when you put these actions to the rigor of very simple mathematical analysis, you see that we have been committing a major tragedy in error against ourselves and others. We have been accepting what should be absolutely unacceptable. In other words, it looks like it is one of these rare times in history that calls for an immediate and quick and radical change. Same as when people realized after thousands of years that: the earth is not flat, but is round! It was a radical change in thinking.

It is like a rocket designed to go to the moon, or a cooking recipe. All ingredients and processes have to be right, because if one ingredient or step is bad, it can be a total failure.

Example: You have to cook a potato recipe for your lunch or for your restaurant. The simple recipe calls for potatoes, tomato sauce, a dash of salt, dash of garlic powder and onion powder. What happens if the potatoes are only 70%, or 80%, or 90%, or 99% good? What will the food be like to taste and eat at each level of certainty? And now, we have to consider this question for every single ingredient in the recipe. Can you accept a 70% or 80% or 90% quality of tomato sauce, and for the garlic and onion? Now let us say you are willing to compromise on quality because you are very poor, and accept an 80% quality for each ingredients. Do you know what the total quality of the recipe is now? To compute this, you simply multiply all the qualities together. I will teach later more about this. But very simply, multiply the quality of the potatoes by the quality of the tomato sauce etc. Let use assume the quality of the salt, garlic and onion powders are 100%. So 80% multiplied by 80% by 80% by 100% by 100% by 100% results in 51% Total quality for the recipe. It should seem logical that the more bad quality ingredients you put in your recipe the worse the results will get. You may get away with one or two poor quality ingredients, but more than this, and the recipe may start to taste bad or may become unhealthy. Now the recipe involves ingredients and cooking steps. So looking at the process steps, which are cooking temperature, cooking time, amount or ratio of each ingredient, and measure the quality of each step, then we face the same process in calculating the quality. So if the recipe calls for cooking these ingredients for one hour and you cook the for only five minutes, the potatoes may still be uncooked and not edible. This step quality may have the value of 20% or possibly 0%. The recipe may call for cooking temperature to be 100 degrees, but you cook it at 50 degrees, then this quality may be valued at 60%. Now if we combine the processing steps qualities to the 51% quality recipe, then the result can become even lower. You may eat a recipe that is 51% quality or 30% and may not care about the taste or if you will die from it, but will you serve it in a restaurant? Can your restaurant succeed with such qualities? Or do you want the ingredients to be 100 unspoiled and 100 percent quality? Do you want the cooking steps of time and temperature to be 100 percent correct? Do you want the amount of sake to be perfect, or be ten times more and ruin the taste? For this recipe to taste great, every ingredient and cooking step has to be nearly perfect, and near 100% in quality and precision. Now imagine cooking or should I say building a space ship. With one thousand ingredients and one thousand steps. Can you imagine the quality that is required from each component and processing step? What if any one ingredient or step is low quality, is it possible that it will ruin the entire space ship and make unacceptably dangerous and thus useless and a waste of money? Can you imagine a computer chip with one million ingredients or transistors, and one thousand operating process? What is the acceptable error rate for this single chip? 100% which is 1 error in 100 part or step, or 1 error in 1000 or 1 error in one million? For some of these products, if the error rate is bigger than one on one million, the chip may not function, and your cell phone may not. Such incredibly small error rates can be considered by some electronics manufacturers as unacceptable. The build their products on pure physics and mathematics. There is no personal guessing in opinion involved. You either know what you are doing exactly or you do not. And if they do not know what they are doing, they do not build a product for sale or give a service to the public.

From all this, You should begin to understand that law makers for years have been cooking and serving us shit to eat, and we have been eating it, many happily. They neither knew what they were cooking, and did not measure quality using mathematics, and we never ate anything else to know the difference, and to know that we have been eating shit. It should be said in fairness that they too did not know that they are serving us shit to eat.

2nd Factor

When a vote is made on a decision, the decision must be for a singular subject or issue that cannot be broken down into smaller subjects or issues (components). This helps minimize the error in the vote decision.


If the proposed law or proposed decision is “Do task A and task B” the vote would be broken into two votes, a vote on “ Do A” and a separate vote on “Do B”. To understand the mathematical consequences of this action, we compute the merit of vote 1 and the merit of vote 2 separately, and the merit of the decision if the vote was not separated: the merit of the unseparated decision is the merit of vote 1 “multiplied” by the merit of vote 2.


Merit of vote 1 = 50% (in mathematics, 50% = 0.5, 50 out of 100 which equals half)


Merit of vote 2 = 30% (in mathematics, 30% = 0.3, 30 out of 100 which equals about a third)

To calculate the combined reliability of two items connected serially, or probability or Merit, you multiply their two percentages. This produces a number that is equal or smaller than either number !

So the merit of a combined decision is: merit 1 multiplied by merit 2 = 0.5 multiplied by 0.3 = 0.15. Which is 15%. So the merit of the vote on “Do task A and task B” is 15%. A lower merit than the merit gained by voting on each item separately. The mathematics is that of probability or reliability theory mathematics. Two events connected together serially, the chance of both of them happening together is the probability of the first multiplied by the probability of the second. The reliability of a system composed of two parts connected serially is the reliability of the first part multiplied by reliability of the second part which gives an equal or a lower reliability for the entire system then either part. Therefore the reason to separate every votes to the smallest component of the decision is to get a more accurate calculation of merit.

Examples to understand reliability and or probability computations which for simplicity can be used interchangeably sometimes:

1. A heart doctor has 60% success rate in doing artificial heart implantation using his skills alone. His reliability therefore is 60%. He succeeds 6 times out of 10 operations or 60 times out of 100 operations. A newly invented mechanical heart device has its own separate 40% success rate in operating effectively in the long run according to the manufacturer. Therefore, the device reliability is 40%, meaning only 4 out of 10 devices are good, or meaning 6 out of 10 devices break after a short period. So the question is: what is the total reliability of this heart operation (combined reliability of the doctor and the device)? Mathematically, it is the reliability of the first multiplied by the reliability of the second = 60% × 40% = 24% !!! The reliability or chance of success for this operation is only 24%. Very low chance of success. Very low reliability. And if it was a voting decision, we can say very low merit! You probably should not do this operation with this particular doctor and particular device, and similarly, you should reject accepting a vote on a law with this result.

2. The senate passes a law with 60% Merit. The judges on Supreme Court vote on a criminal or civil case related to this law with a vote carrying 70% Merit. The person in the court facing judgement is thus freed, convicted or ruled against by a total merit of = 60% × 70% = 42% merit! This person can loose his life, or his property, or his rights based on a judicial vote that has 42% merit. How nice! But to compute a more accurate Merit, we need to use the more accurate merit formula that accounts for the Organization size Additional error rate. So (60% * U.S.A. Senate Organization size Additional error rate of 90%) * (U.S.A. Supreme Court Organization size Additional error rate of 67% * 70%) = 25% Merit!!!! This man or woman or child is being judged by a process that has 25% merit or certainty. Note: I am simplifying by considering only the senate chamber which has 100 members, and leaving out the other chamber, but the numbers are very telling, and seem unreal.

3. Are you beginning to understand the mathematics and its consequences? This does not even consider if the law content is fundamentally sound! This is simply the voting process mathematics on the best wisdom (guess) of congress on an issue combined with the best wisdom (guess) of judges. For group guessing, there is a science and this is the mathematics. This is the shocking reality and tragic consequences of ignorance.

3rd Factor

It is important to give greater consideration (weight) to those voting NO than to those voting YES. In some areas in life, it is similar to the principle of “First, Do No Harm” as supposedly is the case in medicine. Or it is similar to the subject of “Risk Aversion” where bigger weight is given to harm than to benefits. For example, if 50% of people say take this particular medicine because it has harmless side effects, and another 50% tell you do not take it because it may cause you death immediately, will you give both groups’ advice equal weight? Most likely no, because of the seriousness of the consequences. The greater the damage is from a wrong decision, the more weight we give the NO vote. Even if it was 90% telling you take the medicine, and only 10% saying NO because you will die, you may give the 10% NO votes a much higher weight than to the 90% saying YES and decide not to risk taking this medicine. Therefore we must guard much more against the damage (consequences) done to people who are objecting to the vote, because the harm done to them maybe much higher than the benefits gained by those who favour the vote. And we may not know the value or consequences (or how to compute them) of the vote to every particular bystander citizen. How do you compute the value (price) of freedom for an individual, when one person may give it no value while another be willing to loose his life for it? It is like voting on a law for death penalty and we should give greater weight to those who say No to the decision because of the seriousness and the damage and irreversibility of the damage done to a person effected by this law. If he looses his life because of an erroneous decision, found out later, how do you restore back his life, and how do you compensate his family? What do you tell his family?

An example of how to solve this mathematically is by biasing the formula to give two times or three times more weight to the opposing group, etc. But we will keep it very simple, so that the math is clear, sharp, adequate, and can be understood easily by many, and applied easily in town halls, city halls and parliaments and congresses because this issue is so serious and effects all of us, all 5 billion humans of us.

Realistic and typical example to parliaments or congresses to show the magnitude of their errors, and how the mathematics works.

Let us say there is a country that has a parliament or a congress that is in charge of making laws. One congressman, call him congressman A, proposes a law that confiscate 10 percent of every citizens income to give to the poor who have no money. Let us call this is law A. This congressman finds out that 30 percent of congressman will support him which, is not enough to cross the 51 percent required to become a law. Another congressman we will call him congressman B has a law, we will call it law B, which will force a close down of government and business for an official holiday he declares as “Intelligence Day” which he hopes will makes citizens aware of the importance of intelligence. Congressman B finds out only 30 percent of congressman will support him for that, which means his law will not pass. Both laws seem very bad and each has no merit, zero merit (negative merit).

Congressman A and congressman B get together and agree with each other saying support my law and I will support your law, and this way your 30 percent support and my 30 percent support will make give 60 percent support if we combine our two laws under 1 vote. The congress votes on the combined bill composed of law A and law B and law A and law B pass and become law by the support of 60 percent vote. The combination of law A and law B we will call law C.

Let us compute the merit of Law C.

Merit of law C = 60% (yes) - 40% (no) = 20% merit. Law C now has some merit, when it should have none. It should have zero merit. This again illustrates why it should not be allowed to combine laws in a vote. It shows how proposed laws that have absolutely no merit (zero merit) can become law easily. Now imagine a typical congress or parliament single vote on a single bill containing 100 laws or 1000 laws. Is this real? Are you beginning to understand the magnitude of the error and the gravity of the problem. This example illustrates:

1. How laws in practice are made and how flawed the process of law making can be.

2. It illustrates how to compute the merit of a law.

3. It illustrates how combining laws has a disastrous effect on the quality of decisions. Laws that have no merit when combined together can achieve one law that has very big merit, which is very misleading, because it is a corruption of a proper voting process.

4. It illustrates the absolute importance and necessity for the concept that every vote must be broken to the smallest component of the law proposed. That is, law C would be forced to be broken down into its components, in this case, component A and component B and each be voted on separately, and law A and law B would not pass and neither would law C. And citizens would be spared such stupid laws and such stupid law process and law makers and this tragedy imposed on almost every citizens on earth.

5. One important aside: A law has to be used in the court by a judge or a jury. We saw how laws are passed with low merit or even when passed with high merit still have uncertainty about their correctness. A judge or a jury also have to vote on a decision and their voting process also needs to have calculation for merit. The tragedy of errors becomes even greater because now we are combining the low confidence in the correctness of the law with the uncertain correctness of the judge or jury vote. Therefore if a law passes by merit of 80 percent and a jury votes has merit of 60 percent then the combined merit is 80 percent multiplies by 60 percent = 48 percent, which is a low level to use in court to judge the affairs of man. If you can really understand this and the consequences on freedom, on decision making accuracy, on oppression, you will begin to appreciate it how tragic human beings’ situation is all over the world, by being so much less than what it can be.

If one person told you to do one thing and another told you to do the opposite both supposedly equally qualified, what is the benefits of this? what is the value of this advise? The answer can be that it has 0 value because the decision has no information that is valuable about what to do.

Looking at the table of a vote percent we see that the merit of a decision begins after 50 percent vote support. At 50 percent support a vote has zero merit. Also looking at the table, our intuition and desire for accuracy may tell us that any decision with less than 95 percent merit is undesirable because of the error associated with it and the damage this causes. Therefore, it is extremely important before considering a law to ask these questions: Is it an absolute necessity? Do we know how to compute the cost-benefit factors involved? Is it of a great urgency to deal with security or criminal issues? Or is it a matter of civilian nature? If it is a matter of civil nature, the law makers would be wise to not touch or involve themselves in such issues. If it is a security or criminal issue then the law makers should be well versed in the merit of the law so they can make the best decision possible. Your ignorance is our tragedy.

And if “ignorance of the law cannot be a defense in court, and an innocent person is made a criminal and is imprisoned”, when a lawmaker or a judge is ignorant of the mathematics of voting and decisions and the law making process, can he claim ignorance as a defense? Can he be safe from a higher judgement to be made a criminal? A criminal against men stemming from his ignorance? If he is afforded rights of ignorance, should not an accused be afforded the same rights?

Also, criminals may use a weapon to overpower another human being to commit a crime", while law makers use "the law" to overpower a human being to commit a crime. Both are equally guilty and both are criminals. The first criminal often causes injury to one or few humans, while the second criminal often causes injury to millions of humans at the same time. The second criminal and his supporters seem to have no understanding of his crimes, and their enormous magnitude. The first criminal is usually punished while the second criminal is free from criminal punishment and is often celebrated by many for his crimes.

Few formulas as "The Merit Of The Vote" when understood and used properly will effect the life of man for the better as this.

Qualifications for a law maker

Questions to ask yourself if you are considering to enter politics and become a law maker:

1. Do you know basic mathematics, specifically, basic algebra and basic probability theory and its related mathematics. If designing airplanes, high rise buildings, computers and cell phones is base on mathematics and physics in order not to cause injury and to function properly then, this minimal understanding of mathematics is necessary for accurate decision making.

2. Are you seeking political office and law making to give rights to one group by taking away from the rights of another group?

3. Are you aiming to give money and new programs to one group by confiscating the money of another group?

4. Are you physically and mentally a well abled individual with a varied life experience that does not aim to fix a personal shortcoming or inabilities at the expense of others who have well being?

Qualifications of citizens to elect a law maker

Since it may be completely inappropriate to put any qualifications on adult citizens being able to vote, such as requiring bassic knowledge of mathematics and probability theory and its effect in decision making, it is not far fetched to expect many citizens’ votes during elections to not be of high quality. Therefore, it seems wise that when law makers get to office, they can limit themselves, by requiring future law makers coming into office be elected by votes that have high merit. No longer can politicians be elected by wining 51% or 60% or even 70% of the votes! These offices will be empty, and there is nothing wrong with this. However, since the government needs some administrators or overseers, other solutions can be readily found.

Qualifications of universities to teach politics and law

As of today, I would venture to guess that every university that has a department for teaching politics have their department named as “Political Science department”. But a better name for these departments may be “Political Arts Department” or “Political Philosophy Department”. Using the word science in a name implies use of the precision of mathematics and mathematical tools in the field, where the entire subject, from A to Z is taught based on mathematics. That is not the case now. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Change it.

Here is a section from the book “Jamil” modified and cuss words added because of the incredible importance of this subject and how much damage is being done by uneducated and unresponsive people and lawmakers :

The Index Of Social Intelligence:

Best is the simplest version: The government shall make no civil laws, without the explicit consent of every citizen (100 percent) approval. In other words, it is better not to make any civil laws.

Violating this principal can be a violation of an individual's rights, and if this individual takes it upon himself to remedy the situation, I don't know if he can be blamed.

But to expand and make clear, here is a breakdown of what this can mean, basic freedoms that should be preserved and can serve as an indication of some intelligence in a society and culture:

- The freedom to self defense. Clearly this means the right to own and carry the tools to do it, otherwise it is meaningless. So owning of firearms and carrying it concealed or not, is a right

- The freedom to eat whatever I want. It is my body, you bastard uneducated shit

- The freedom to drink whatever I want. It is my body, you bastard uneducated shit

- The freedom to inhale/smoke whatever I want. It is my body, you bastard uneducated shit

- The freedom to put in my body whatever I want. It is my body, you bastard uneducated shit

- The freedom to say whatever I want. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. Change the channel. You bastard ignorant uneducated shit

- The right to give my money or property to who ever I want, and to give as much of it as I want

- The freedom to think whatever I want. I want to read, listen without interference to think whatever I want

- The freedom to believe whatever I want and practice it. (Naturally, if it does not infringe on you)

- The freedom to travel

- The freedom to dress however I want or not to dress at all, the freedom for nudity in public. (Few things human beings can do, that will benefit them as the practice of public nudity. I cannot stress enough its importance.)

- The freedom to have sex between consenting adults, even if for money

- The freedom to gamble

- The freedom to decide the amount of risk I am willing to accept in any event or action I undertake. The government has no right to interfere in this. Life is full of risks of every sort, physical, financial, business, products, social etc. ( The government cannot interfere under the guise of protecting the citizen or consumer or worker etc.)

- The freedom to lend money for interest. Lending of money is a consensual civil act, and failure to have the debt repaid is a risk the lender takes. It is not proper for the lender or borrower to bind the government (society, everyone in it including you and me) into such private contracts when there are defaults on contracts. Do not make me, or cost me, to be a party in your private contracts.

- The freedom to associate with only people or groups of your choice, to discriminate. A discriminating person is an intelligent person. Discrimination is an essential part of intelligence and of freedom of choice. The uneducated or evil have made discrimination a social taboo, and is even considered a crime in some societies, by creation of such terms as “hate crime” etc.

- The freedom to not have your money confiscated by government by force of gun or by tax laws (both are theft). “Use-cost fees” seem like a possible solution. (Note: Taxation is typically the oxygen that can strengthen and feeds the enemy of freedom, a bad or big government). Learn and create intelligent private ways for meet large projects funding if desired

- The freedom to have a national identity card, that cannot be taken / stripped from you by anyone (including the government), and that can be used for travel locally and internationally

- The freedom to own your child. A child is born a property of the mother, completely as part of her physical body, as an arm or leg or hair, and then for her to decide all matters. Also, all the responsibilities are hers alone. No matter how uneducated, incapable, or irresponsible she may be, the baby is hers, and the decisions and control are completely hers: To educate or not, and how to, what they eat, drink, smoke, learn, or do, etc. No government or anyone can mandate to her. Having given a woman sperm does not constitute a person becoming a parent or obligated to be one. Also, what this means is that the father has zero obligations towards the child or the mother. Zero obligations financially or otherwise. What a father does in support is out of love. So a child born is not a financial transaction for the benefit of the mother. A social welfare system of sort to fuck the men financially. If you need money for your life, get educated and get a job or learn about birth control. The mother decides who the parents are. She or they, not the government, decide the age of child maturity. Do not allow or make the government or society play the role of a mother and father. They are not. At least do not make them mine. If you need a mother and a father to tell you what to do, go find your mother or father, or get adopted

- The freedom to birth control and to abort a pregnancy, that is, to kill the fetus. It is her body, not yours, you uneducated shit. This is redundant with her freedom to do as wish with her body or her child. I use the word "kill" to not mince words or get scared by others from words. Just as cutting your nail is killing living cells, and cutting your hair, or an ugly mole, or a cancer lump, or a kidney you cut to donate or throw away, these are all living cells or organs that are a part of your body and for no one to interfere whatsoever with what you do with it. And donating an egg, to outside her body, to give to another person, does not make her the mother or owner any longer

- The right for a man or a women or a group of them to live together as they wish without interference from religion or the government. To procreate and give each other rights as they wish. It is my strong but personal opinion that sex should be only between a man and a woman as the hygienic and natural order of a human being

- The freedom to buy and sell a product or a service, consensually, between two parties, without government interference. This includes the right to hire or be hired

- If you do not want to sell a child sent by a parent to buy a product, it is your own business, not the government. Sell or not, is up to you. I grew up and still live sometimes in places were it is the norm for very young children to work in their parent's stores to sell or are sent to buy alcohol or tobacco etc. It is not for anyone except the parents to decide in such issues.

- The freedom to die

- The freedom from forced confinement due to attempt to suicide or mental illness problems (confinement such as in a hospital or jail)

- Freedom from business regulations; a worker or customer can go somewhere else if unhappy. The owner is not obliged to accommodate a customer or a worker

- The freedom from governments forcing a citizen into a service. Such as military or court jury service. If a person objects to killing humans he does not know, or agree with the reason for killing, how can you force him to do it? Government service can only be voluntary

- The freedom to own private property, and the right to protect it

In short, the freedom from all civil laws. And absolutely and most importantly, the freedom from the criminalization of civil acts. Some in society will want to make civil acts to be defined as criminal acts, so guard firmly against this. The definition of a civil act and a criminal act should be very clearly defined. Civil advisories seem acceptable, advisories of best available knowledge of a community to help guide actions. Advisories are not mandatory and are for a common community, at a common time and place.

- "Community standards" and "society" are abstract terms and are the antithesis of freedom and should have no foundation in law as I explain. Only the individual matters and is the real entity that can represent itself and has rights. Allowing such terms and concepts as "community standards" may sound good at the surface to the uneducated but can be the death nail of personal freedom of choice. These rights outlined and spoken about in this book belong only to the individual.


- Note about Victimless Crimes Or Acts: Looking at the Index Of Social Intelligence, we can conclude for example that, if no laws should be enacted regarding consensual sex, but if a parliament does and bans prostitution, and a person is imprisoned for this, then this is a victimless crime. Both parties in this act agree with each other in this private contract. Same for civil issues between two parties, such as child support, or money lending. Here are more examples:

Owning a weapon for self defense. Serving MSG food additives or trans fats in restaurants. Having a restaurant that allows smoking. Selling alcohol or tobacco or drugs. Speaking your mind, or writing. Driving without a helmet. Walking nude in public. Freedom of association.

Stop taking peoples’ freedoms (and stop wasting money on jails, police, lawyers, courts and politicians on such issues). Empty your prisons quickly from all such acts. You are aggressing against these people by putting them in jail. You are not using a gun to rob their freedoms, but using unjust and bad laws with the same effect. How can you do this? Are you so uneducated in logic and human values to understand this, even after reading these writings? You, the parliament or congress or president or the judge, are the ones committing a crime, when you do this, not these people.

- The freedom from international civil treaties, (and maybe criminal treaties). These are or can be used to circumvent, get around, local laws. Guard diligently against this. Using such mechanisms as treaties to bind people by foreign laws that they would not accept in their local laws or know about is better be prohibited. Treaties cannot be about civil issues. (Only criminal if any, and should be in line with local standards. The problem is that another backward country can define a civil act as criminal, according to their standards, and then can make it a criminal act in your country or if you travel to their country. How nice! Here you are innocently at the airport and you get arrested for some alleged violation you are not aware of. Now spent time, money, lawyers, and bail if you can, while you try to convince some person or court in a backward or advanced country, to free yourself.) Freedom is freedom in your own country and from other countries’ laws that are in cahoots with your country to take your freedom in indirect way.

General principal: If my actions do not limit your freedom of choice, then a law for the act should not exist. Example: Free speech. If you do not like a book, newspaper, radio, or TV program, you have the option to not tune to it. So you should not create any laws that interfere in this. Same for food or food service places. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, and you do not like smoking, you have the option not to go there. Etc. If you feel your freedom is infringed upon by having a newspaper that issues views you dislike, and it should be banned, this is not infringing on your freedom. No one is forcing you to read it. Infringing on your freedom of choice means limiting your freedom of choice. In this case, your choice has not been limited, but to the contrary, it has been expanded. Same for selling tobacco, alcohol or drugs or prostitution or parachuting or sky diving or motorcycle driving. They carry risks for the individual to decide on, and not for you, and they do not limit your choice and are not a direct physical threat to you. How does the existence of a restaurant (well ventilated and filtered) for smokers limit your choice or does you direct physical harm? What has become wrong with your mental ability to logically think? Until you can answer this simple question, know that your logic is erroneous and you need more education in logic. Having a restaurant for smokers increases your choice, not limits it. You may hate smoking for what ever reason, but your choices are preserved, and you can choose not to select this restaurant, just as you choose in life not to select many things you dislike. But don’t take this choice from others who want it.

General principal: Do not allow laws that convert a “private contract” by their nature, to become a “public contract”. Examples of private contracts are: money lending, or a marriage agreement between two people. A private contract in case of disputes should remain private and be resolved by and at cost of the private parties involved. A public contract is enforced by public courts and at the cost of the citizens, you and me, pay the cost of. The cost of courts, jails, and enforcement, all of which are an imposition on other citizens which are not parties to the dispute. Examples to make this clear:

Default on debt between lender and borrower.

A lender lending a drunk, or mentally handicapped or highly uneducated person or giving a shark-loan etc. is acting to his advantage. Some will try to insert the government into this, saying the answer is more laws that protects the mentally handicapped or drunk or uneducated etc. It is not for the government to be the judge about who is fit or not which inserts the government into the role of the enforcer. The government should not judge in private contracts nor be the enforcer. The private parties in the contract between them bear all the risks and costs or benefits. And if there is default on the loan, he should bear full responsibility in this private contract. And I should not be a party to enforcing your private contract, by allowing you to take this issue to a public court and pay for the courts or prisons or police, etc. Some things involve risk, and when you indulge in them, you should bear the total cost and benefits, not me. By the same logic, marriage should be a private and not a public contract. Do not make me a party in it when there is a problem and force me to spend for the courts etc. Resolve your private contract disputes through your own mechanisms, be it private mediators or otherwise.

General principal: The challenges. We rely on best logic as our guide in life, and assume it to be the bases for human interaction. We care about physical security against threats as a priority, such as being attacked, or physically threatened. Therefore, a proper state of mind is important in relations for us to feel secure. But if a person is mentally deranged to the point of being a physical threat, then this can complicate issues, and needs to be looked at. So in the cases of mind altering drugs, the mind may become incapable of making logical judgement that we expect people to have. And they can become a physical threat. So the case of “mind altering acts” should be studied carefully, to permit both, freedom of action, without it being a physical threat to others. Example: ingesting a drug, that in small quantity is relaxing, but in large quantity, may greatly effect a persons judgement (logic) on a road. It is a very difficult issue to deal with. With a gun at my side, if a person impaired of judgement attacks me or threatens me, because he is hallucinating from drug use, or from being mentally handicapped, or being a thief, I can protect myself and shoot them. That may be the best solution that protects completely my freedom and his freedom. In this case, there is a person to person encounter, and I have a chance to defend myself against normal risks in life. But if such a hallucinating person starts and drives a car while I am in another car, I have no such opportunity to defend myself because I cannot be aware of the threat oncoming. Difficult issue to deal with, but maybe good solutions can be found. Another case is where the person drinks alcohol or takes drugs at his house, and stays there till the effects are gone and his judgment (logic) ability is restored. I have no right to interfere in what he does in such a case? Life involves many risks, and it is not the function of a stranger (government) to tell me how much risk I can have in it. This should be an individual choice. The best we can do is educate well, voluntarily, and be prepared to deal with the harm if it comes near, as an unavoidable cost of having freedom. Try to be creative in finding solutions that preserve these rights. A difficult task, but using best thinking (scientific ) that preserves good values is preferable. Some will fight and die for their freedoms to be preserved and others may be willing to sell it for one dollar. How do we know which is the better value? Freedom is, because it preserves both their choices. Freedom contains both choices, while the opposite does not. Freedom allows freedom and lack of it as a personal choice, while lack of freedom, oppression, only allows oppression. Freedom can be very slow acting sometimes, and is a strong foundation to build on, while oppression can be very fast acting sometimes, and is a weak foundation to build on. Often, people’s uneducated instincts under threat is to turn to quick and tried solutions that bring immediate results. But this may not be best in the long run. And sometimes, it may be wise to have guidance in short time, and then to completely remove it later, as a child under control of parent, and then completely free later to act on his own as adult. But in matters of law creation, this is difficult to emulate, because once a law is enacted, it is difficult to cancel, and difficult to know when to cancel it. When erring in matters of law making, it seems proper to err on the side of freedom. It has been said that it is wise to let one hundred guilty prisoners free, than to imprison one innocent person. Law making is a matter of values. Educate well and choose your values.

All rights not expressly given by a particular person (a person that has a name), then this specific person is exempted from this law. In practice this person is treated according to his belief, a good idea is that upon maturity, a person can sit down and write the laws he agreed to, and that is all (he can say the Ten Commandments, or the five Buddhist commandments, or the golden rule, or whatever). Or maybe another and better option is to not agree or not write anything leaving himself complete freedom of action. This is not lawlessness, because long before there were governments, people lived without such needs.

I showed you how much ignorance there is in law making. So stop taking these peoples freedom and stop wasting. And when the constitutions tells a law maker "Do not do this or that" and the law maker does it; what resort does the citizen have? You have just committed a crime against him. How do you put him in jail or more? If the constitution says do not make laws against free speech, and the law maker does. When the constitution says "all rights not expressly delegated by the citizen to the government do not belong to the government" and the law maker takes your rights anyway, rights to eat, drink, inhale, dress, etc. as you wish, what recourse do you have against these very high level aggressions?

Because this document is about civil freedoms, it is important to discuss very briefly the other side of the issue, to enhance clarity. There are civil issues and criminal issues. It is extremely important to know the distinction and to define criminal issues well, so that they will not be mistaken with civil issues. There should not be “punitive” punishment by government or courts for civil acts. Punitive means incarceration (such as jail), or any forced enforcement on his property (such as court ordered taking or seizing of property, money, or other rights). For example: in a divorce or child related issues, these are civil issues, neither party can be jailed or have their salary or property affected. The government cannot use force on either party. The government should not even be involved. The child is the mother’s and completely hers and her responsibility. Unless physically harmed, a criminal issue, the government has no role.

I may not have an excellent or complete definition of “a criminal act”, but I will give you a good starting definition. A criminal act is a direct intent to act or threat of literal physical injury to a person or to take away basic freedom by physical force or take or injure their property. As part of the definition, there are always two components present: intent, and use of physical force. Court punitive action can only be for a criminal act. Lastly, there should be a presumption of innocence for an accused, because almost any person can make or make up an accusation against another person.

Parents disputes, child support issues disputes, business contracts disputes, etc. are not criminal issues. It has become fashionable to make some of these civil acts criminal because of lobbying power of some groups or societal ignorance or through international treaties. There is a tendency for many groups to feel that they should obtain what they think as their rights in any way, including making the non criminal violation of their civil rights a criminal act. Do not allow this to happen.

The right to trial by jury and the nullification of law by the jury: that is, make the law inapplicable or useless. In a criminal act, a jury can decide to ignore the law, because the law sometimes can be incomplete, incorrect, or not applicable to the particular situation, or to override a bad judge.

The freedom to take the law into your own hands. Most times, there are no government security forces around you, so if there is a criminal act being committed in front of you, such as your old neighbor being attacked or crying for help, you can arrest or shoot the attacker, as proper action. (Note: Fear is an oxygen that feeds the need for government. Fears of different types: imagined fear (created by media or gossip), exaggerated, or intentionally created to cause call for government, or poor solutions suggested to problems, or poorly educated public).

Lastly, all this is immaterial if your children and adults do not learn these values well, practice them, and commemorate them.

It is absolutely remarkable that these minimal and basic freedoms seem to be lacking everywhere on earth. Even the supposedly advanced societies on earth are great violators of these freedoms as of this publication date.

I do not know how these societies or cultures can call themselves intelligent, because these freedoms seem to be the minimum required before the thought process in a human being can begin to take place unrestricted.

The more absent these freedoms are from society the less intelligent the society is likely to be.

Freedom is one of the most essential ingredients needed for a society to be intelligent socially, economically and in other spheres. It is an essential component for economic success.

Freedom does not guarantee success, but without it you are less likely to have optimal success.

If the foundation of engineering, that creates useful products, is physics, with its math equations, then politics, culture and economics are the engineering that should be built on these freedom equations as foundation. When you observe these principles, laws become extremely few and relating only to criminal law. And lawmakers and politicians may find little work if any to do.

To learn more, and how bad laws are, and how they are made, read my book "Creating Freedom On Earth".

In the discussion of law and freedom, it is important to understand these principals :

1. The law is to serve man, and not for man to serve the law.

2. The word "society" is an abstraction. While the word "individual" is concrete. An individual is an identifiable specific person with a name, age, etc. His rights or grievances are all that matters for the law. And his rights or grievances can be only against a specific person or specific group of individually identifiable persons involved in the grievance (not society in the abstract or in general). With this, expanded on greatly in concrete logic, we can reach the conclusion that laws should only deal with grievances between individuals only, and there are no bases for granting society any rights in the law. Society has no rights. Only the individual has rights.

3. These rights are his, not given by others. What he chooses to relinquish of his rights to others, he cannot use as imposition on others. So if you do not like to drink alcohol and are willing to relinquish this right, you have no right to force others to do the same. That is, do not force a ban of alcohol just because you do not want it for yourself.

4. Every law may be an unwanted imposition on another individual. And therefore, laws have extremely high cost to some., If their adoption is a necessary evil, always remember what they are, necessary and evil.

5. The underlying process of law making and law adjudicating should be founded on science build purely on mathematics. I have laid the foundation to do so in my books.

In life, in general, give preferences to people who you like and share your values, in your personal affairs and business affairs. For example, when you buy a product or a service it seems wise to buy these from people you would like to see become more successful. This is how you make yourself stronger in some areas that relates to values, culture, or politics. This way, your values hopefully win against the other people who oppose your values. Your actions have consequences in the short term and the long term that affects you and affects others. If this index becomes a reality, it will be a major transformation for better on earth. Make it a reality.

More from the book “Jamil” on few of the motivations and groups that drive creation of laws:

The psychologies of the weak, ugly, evil, or uneducated, sometimes can be harmful

Educate humans against acquiring the mentality of the weak, ugly (the “unattractive” as maybe more polite word to use ), evil, or uneducated. These mentalities create problems for the individual, and for the society. Weak people may have tendencies to cluster around friends, within groups, and in politics to leech off other people or weaken the strong. They will use social acts, politics, or the law to restrict them, tax them, take away their money, and affect their social standing, because they envy them, or their successes, or feel entitled to benefits or things forcefully paid for by others. Educate people to be aware of this and for them to guard against it and such tendencies.

Form a united front against such groups to protect yourself and your interests. Educate the weak not weaken the strong just because they can, by aggregating. Educate the strong not to attack the weak, just because they are able. Develop group techniques and teach these methods from childhood. It creates a more peaceful society with citizens growing up and living with a greater level of serenity and sense of security.

Even though life may put you in a weak spot at times, it is better to adopt good principles and not let yourself be swayed by your circumstance. Awareness of the challenge helps you overcome it.

Learning to deal with all these factors creates a better individual.

Spread the principle “control yourself, not others. Use your own money, not others. (Tax yourself, not others).”

End of quotation

Example of how the psychology of the weak causes wrong behavior:

In the Index Of Social Intelligence, the first right I speak of is the right for self defense. It seems that nothing could be more important and logical than this right. It also means owning weapons if a person wants to. Yet, few things evoke as much fear for the so-called "advanced societies" or others as this right. Uniformly as of my recent knowledge, they do not allow this right. And if allowed, this right is limited.

The fear of many citizens is of someone walking with a gun, thinking they can shoot anyone at will. They have forgotten that not too long ago, this was the natural practice for many, to walk with a gun or a sword before that. And they forgot that if everyone carried a gun, the psychology and culture quickly changes to adapt, and a possible offender will also modify his thinking, and will not offend anymore than todays' gangsters and criminals.

Focusing on how the psychology of the weak plays a role, I will use the example of the group of "women" who in general are physically weaker than men. This causes inherent psychological fear of being attacked by a stronger man and causes them to want the existence of police or government institutions that provide security. They become advocates of laws and bigger government in its involvement in human relations. If women were educated properly, I would expect them to be strongest supporters of freedom to own a gun and carry it. Women have not yet reached the understanding and psychological comfort of the extremely important idea that "a very small gun in their pocket or purse can neutralize the strongest man in seconds! And provide ready safety when they are well trained to use it, providing much of the needed security in any location." With this simple reality, a woman elevates her security and strength and freedom to that of any man in threatening situations. In a quick draw of the gun, a criminal or an offending person is shot, and this balances the equation. What more could you want? Why are you not demanding such freedom for yourself. The reason is ignorance and bad logic brought about by adopting the psychology of the weak from early on in life. Women by nature have smaller physical strength than men and are more gentle in personality, both are qualities many prefer as feminine, and this should not be a reason for them to have less security or freedom than men in a civil or uncivil society.

Just a touch on the psychologies of some law makers, politicians and the like:

The Law maker: A person that is extremely dangerous to your liberty and property. He is armed with great intentions of helping you. He is a stranger to you, but he wants to tell you what to eat, drink, dress, how to run your company, what wages you must accept if you need a job, he wants to give you so many gifts of health care, education, social security and programs, but he does not pay for it out of his own pocket, and confiscates the money from someone else to gift it to you. He insists that a program to be good, it must be a forced official government program, not a private or voluntarily developed program. He believes he knows your interests better than you do, and he is not your father or your mother and you are an adult, but he can make you do things, because he is armed not with a gun, where it is easy to understand the situation and the problem, instead, he is armed with a powerful tool that is called the law. A law that he and others like him create and inact on you or me despite my objection. He is also armed with great ignorance, about mathematics, and the mathematics of decision making and its consequences on my freedom and life. Ignorant of the mathematics of cost and benefit. Ignorant of the price of freedom. In short he is armed with ignorance and armed with considering himself a do-gooder, a deadly combination to combat. Combine this with ignorant citizens neighbours, citizens who feel they are do-gooders, and the situation becomes a total nightmare. That is our situation today, a nightmare, a tragedy on a massive scale. Jails full of people involved in victimless crimes that should be let free immediately, and a bigger jail has been created for the almost all, the knowing and the unknowing.

And knowing what lawmakers all over the world have done and continue to do to 5 billion human beings, the author stacked all the pictures of parliaments and congresses he had and took his shotgun, aimed and blew them up, not. But, that is how he felt.

The End. Some notes follows:

A side note:

Criminal law:

I do not want to write much about criminal law beyond few more simple general principles. Briefly and without much elaboration:

- A jury of judges or people is better than one judge. Since in grave matter in law courts, such as supreme courts, or judging a president, it has been regarded as wise to have multiple judges. This practice is an indirect admission or is inherent recognition that a single judge can make mistakes, and by having multiple judges, the possibility of error is reduced, therefore it seems wise mathematically to improve a judging decision by use of a jury of judges or people. If this is an expensive process, and if human justice is the goal, then that is a part of the price. And, if you cannot do justice properly, then it is best not to do it at all, because a very high price will be paid by the victim or accused. There is not continuous mathematical curve drawn for justice between mediocre justice and excellent justice. Justice means excellence, without deviation. And if justice is too expensive to pay for to be achieved, it may be better not done and the issue left to resolve itself by other means, primarily for the victim and accused to resolve it amicably or not and privately or not. A Non Partisan Citizen Has No Obligation To Provide To Others The Cost Of Justice.

- The Parties Involved In A Criminal Dispute Bear The Responsibility And Right To Make The Error In Settlement, And Not The Public. I as a nonpartisan citizen in this conflict refuse to be made a party to using laws I know are inherently flawed and a process that is inherently flawed.

- Justice properly done means accepting the reality that many disputes cannot be resolved in court

- As the person harmed, he has the full right to:

1. Cancel the application of the law, which means he does not want government interference in his grievance.

2. Cancel the judge’s final ruling completely or partially as he pleases (lessening the punishment if any is given).

3. Settle with the accused without any outside interference.

Values are very important and come from culture or parents or religion, etc. In some countries. If you steal they'll cut your hand. Other places may put you in prison mandatory and other places may leave it to the judge or the jury and others may simply shoot you as a personal option for settlement. It can all be considered valid. Some religions give you different values. Some say as Jesus did: forgive them because they do not know what they do, or he who is without sin let him cast the first stone. These are completely different values than cutting hands or hanging etc. Jesus also said settle your differences quickly and outside the court. But how many Christian dominated countries practice these values????? I want to suggest a value very strongly as a guide to solving disputes, and that the first principle is it should be up to the supposed victim in a crime and the accused to resolve their situation privately or with help of parents. Or if must, in court, they can say: We the people harmed want to forgive or we want to ask you to give much less punishment instead of 10 years, 10 months or 10 days or only as necessary of required education to learn of their error and be tested that they understand this. My value is “give people what they like, if they like violence and harm, give it to them, and if they like forgiveness, civility and education, give it to them.”

It seems proper to ask each family: If your father or son or daughter committed a crime, what would be a good punishment? Empathy, a foundation of some human relations, may be a guide in private settlement or court, with each family playing the opposite role, where the family of the victim can play the role of the family of the accused and vice versa.

Or to bring the issues to rigorous mathematical solutions, use game theory in mathematics and economics for a solution that meets the objective of both. This may be good sometimes, or too complicated at other times.

If I were to choose one illustration of a typical but famous trial that demonstrates the many bad aspects of the law, its creation, its application, and the difference between civil law and criminal law, it is the trial of Jesus. Here was a man that used speech to educate people about a subject. It should be free speech. It is a civil issue and he should have the right to do it. As typical, when a group or a government feels threatened by speech, they turn the issue into a criminal issue. That is one of the greatest harm to men: turning a civil issue into a criminal issue. Furthermore, his judgment is put to a jury of people that by a voice vote, and with unknown “merit of the vote” is convicted to death. The whole process is not proper based on the many principals I outlined. Think long and hard about this example to understand the issues. And of course, the damage done is great and irreversible. Now go tell his mother Mary and his father: Oh sorry, we made a mistake in killing your son. How can we compensate you for your loss? How many silver coins is his life worth so we can pay you?

Examples of how governments and groups use bad events to rob freedoms: As of the year 2019, maybe around 1 million die from heart disease every years and it is not big news, and one million die from normal flu every year and it is not big news, one million die or injured from normal accidents and it is not big news, etc. and then when sometimes 10 or 100 or 10000 or more die from crime or terror or some health epidemic, then the whole world comes to end and a government declares emergency laws, and calls for suspending civil rights and suspending rational thinking that demands putting numbers and events in perspective. These people find a purpose for their life and to justify their jobs. I maybe sorry for your many deaths and how it happened, but life is full of risks and problems, and that is no excuse to rob my freedom. Do not let those who are against freedom use such incidents to limit freedom and increase their own powers and agendas. There are many known and hidden powers in the world that have their own interests. Be strong-footed in your understanding, and do not let them trespass on our freedoms. You are helping evil when you are weak in your understanding. Risks are a natural part of life, and under no circumstance, does the government has the right to decide this risk for me.

Example of using more freedom, not less, to solve big problems. Scarcity Of Freedom:

As typical in many countries. A group of individuals threaten terror, demonstrations, or blocking people or government businesses, because they feel they have been deprived of some right. The answer is not to take away their freedom of speech or to fight them physically, but better maybe to facilitate that they can be heard by the public to explain their grievance. So they maybe gifted a radio or tv or internet with the inscriptions on it " if you cannot convince the people to support you by talking to them freely, then you want to convince them by force of arm? Is this how we should treat you? We will if you cannot understand this simple logic” so that they can speak as much as they want. This is how problems should be solved, by discussion, they will be told. This with the absolute understanding, that "now you can explain endlessly to the public, but if the public is not convinced, you no longer have the right to take arms, or else, we will take arms against you rightfully as this is your preference for how to resolve issues, and we will kill you mercilessly".

When is it legitimate for citizens to take arms against the government? When any of the civil rights are limited, for any reason, or under any pretext such as emergency situation, war, health epidemics, crimes, terrorism, etc.,

There are many dangers in life to a person, of getting killed, or harmed, etc., but the government should not prevent this citizen from the above freedoms and to take as much risk as he wants in his life. If other citizens feel in danger from his actions, they, not the government, can take the actions they feel are proper to protect their own safety. The freedom of such action resides with the citizen and not the government.

If the above rights are always preserved, then a citizen is not justified to take arms, because his ability to live freely and to communicate his ideas and grievances peacefully are not interfered with in any practical way. If these rights are violated, then he has logical right to take arms against the government. Therefore, by observing and guarding these rights, citizens learn and insist on peaceful resolution to problems.

Translating ideals to reality example: Extremely central to the issue of freedom, and if it can become a reality in practice is the issue of birth control. Scarcity Of Sex: Freedom means freedom for men and freedom for women. If a woman does not have very effective and very accessible means for birth control, her most basic focus would be on birth, because birth of a baby effects her life dramatically. It alters her body dramatically. It alters her physical security dramatically because she is less able to fight aggressions. It alters her financial ability and her ability to provide food for herself and shelter because of her physical changes. It lessens her ability to spend time on education, because when pregnant and after birth, she is less able in all areas to have time and resources for her future, and now the much added new responsibilities of having to meet the needs of a new dependent person. All this, and maybe more, shows the seriousness and effect of birth on a woman and how heavily a woman or an intelligent woman needs to think and worry about. It is extremely dramatic. As a result, sex for a woman is a very life altering decision and possibly for the worse. Therefore, without birth control, extremely effective and extremely accessible, an intelligent woman, may opt to not have sex, because of the results. But if having sex is extremely pleasurable, healthy, and therefore, good to practice, how can a woman enjoy all these benefits without suffering bad consequences. A human wants to enjoy life and freedom to have sex, and this burden of not having birth control or being it extremely accessable, is a major block towards this objective, that forces women to adopt very bad habits of worry and avoid sex. This in turn greatly effect men and their needs to have anf enjoy sex to their satisfaction. If men dont have easy access to sex, they will develop bad habits such as masturbation or faggotery, etc. to meet their needs. To justify their new bad habits, they change their psychology for worse to comfort themselves, and adopts possibly one of the psychologies of the uneducated, evil or ugly etc. The results are bad for the person involved and others because he will demand for laws, and for others to change to be like him, to form groups to force others to accept him, and use laws and other mechanisms towards this end. These laws and new social norms etc. are damaging to good values (good health, good hygiene, lots of healthy sex, healthy bodies, healthy psychology, security, freedom, prosperity, etc.) Therefore, if woman do not have easy access to birth control, it causes her extreme damage, to her freedom, and other aspects of life, and the worries she will have, have a dramatic chain effect that alters social norms and habits. Not having birth control effects men for the worse, and it dramatically damages a particular woman's choices and ability to have a good life, or the life she chooses to have. Men's lives are dramatically effected for better or worse by her decision. Limiting her choices and ability limits man's choices and ability, and therefore, it is extremely important for a woman to have this choice and not to live in fear of the consequences of having sex. Men and women should strive not only to protect this right, but to ensure she feels very free to indulge in sex without fear of bad consequences. Those who oppose this, want to control human happiness, and tend to have the psychology of the uneducated, weak, ugly or evil. They are the seeds and power of bad, unliberated, uneducated cultures. This is one example of how to translate ideals such as "freedom, the freedom of choice" from an ideal, such as "the government has no right to interfere in a human ( woman's) choice " into making it a reality, by having society and business provide products or solutions to birth control, that also allow meeting good values (healthy and pleasurable sex that is easily accessible ). I don’t know how to say it better, but few things are as important as this freedom and making it a reality for humans, as it greatly effects their happiness, civility, culture, aggressiveness, and entire healthy development and wellbeing, and costs nothing or little. This subject should be studied well and expanded on.

Freedom is less meaningful with scarcity, example:

Very important: Must add. On prostitution. It seems that a woman that has sex with a man or masturbate him should not charge money if she gets pleasure out of it. And if as a general principal it is wise to enjoy your work, it seems wise that the sex worker should enjoy it. And if she enjoys it a lot, then maybe she should not charge for it. As for me, a man, I have no problem doing this work if safe. While I will hesitate to give a woman sex for fear of disease, I do not hesitate from masterbating her for free. By playing with her breast and maybe other parts of her body. I am willing to do it for free if I find the woman attractive. No need to feel any shame about such work. It can be very pleasurable when safe, and it can be very healing or stress reducing to the customer. Do not shame these workers, rather appreciate the wonderful service they offer. It can be the most healing service or therapy you can have. This is a mere service and is not the same as selling your body.

And one sign to know if a culture is bad, is finding out how much they limit or discourage natural healthy sex. A bad culture creates artificial scarcity in sex. This scarcity has many supporters, and is then used by some woman to force men into marriage (in part to satisfy their sexual needs) or make it a financial trade for women. Others will use it for anti freedom social agendas. I will repeat again how important it is for learning about safe sex and practicing it often as a very healthy and pleasurable activity and to avoid making it a scarcity.

Scarcity of products, such as drugs: Here is something for you to think about, instead of me, to see if you are beginning to understand how to use freedom and abundance to solve problems:

In many countries, the use of so-called drugs is illegal. Punishable by severe punishment. A kilogram of illegal drugs is extremely expensive, and is surrounded by illegal or criminal activities that make prices very high and attractive to engage in. If the government decided to provide or allow these drugs to be sold freely, and easily, will the price per kilogram drop from 50,000 dollars maybe to 5 dollars, just like buying any product in the supermarket? Will all the crime surrounding this economic product stop? Will the users, few hopefully, become a public health issue rather than a criminal issue, to try to help, like any addict or sick individual? Can you understand the economics of scarcity? And how it effects price, crime, and other issues? Can you think of good solutions that respect freedom?

Economic needs and corruption of freedom values. An example: A note about oil fuel and how it corrupts international human values, and international politics for the worse. Countries with maybe decent values become political slaves and opponents of freedom for fear of badly needed product shortage. They corrupt their values, and instead of like minded countries being aware of being made into an economic hostage, and acting in solidarity, doing a reverse and complete boycot of such hostile countries. Whatever the answer is, it should be a clear unmistakable and effective and collective peaceful reply. Few commodities have corrupted international values as oil. It should be studied well as to how deal with such issues.

Technical note for mathematicians and the more technically knowledgeable: I defined Merit as the difference between those voting YES and NO. Then modified it by the Organization size Additional error rate. For more accurate results, we need to modify this result further by the YES vote percentage. Therefore a 60 to 40 percent vote has 20 percent Merit. If the voting Organization has 100 members their Organization Additional Error Rate is computed to be 10%. So the 20% Merit of the vote is adjusted down by 10% to become 18%. Then we take the 60% YES result and adjust it down by this Merit of 18% to get final result of 11% Merit for this vote. So the real Merit or certainty of the 60% to 40% vote is 11%. This is much lower than the 20% Merit we computed at first. While a 20% Merit or certainty for a vote if accepted can be grounds for a firing squad, for such stupid decision if allowed, which is today’s reality, imagine the more accurate Merit measure formula giving 11 percent Merit. These congress people almost celebrate when a vote is passed with 60% YES, and same for citizens electing a president or other politicians to office with 60% YES, when both should immediately stop this horror and take some classes for education. Stop serving us shit for law and shit election systems. 5 billion people are involved and I personally am shocked by where the math in this subject has led me and shown me. Will people on earth demand and live by 95 or 99 percent accuracy in decisions or the near zero percent accuracy of today’s political systems? The answer is clear even if disturbing and unpleasant to many.

I conclude with this educational value, that address conflict problems far before they develop: Teach children the mathematical field of game theory early in play that demonstrate the concepts so later on in their young education, they can understand these issues easily through formal mathematics equations . These understandings become a powerful toolset in their basket to resolve personal disputes with others, without need for courts or lawyers, and greatly increase their logic skill set and quality of their life. What is abstract university material for university students should be play games for elementary and intermediate school children.

A side note:

Return On Investment concept:

In economics or a company, the outcome for success is dependent on available resources (such as available labor and capital and intelligence). How much intelligence does this book add to your life or economy?When looking at the price of an item, what is important is the Return On Investment from buying the item. If a book is priced $1 and brings you no value, and another book is priced 1 million and brings you 10 million in value, benefits, education, knowledge, or direct money, or delayed money that will come. The 1 million dollar book sounds like a very good buy.. So what should the price for this book be, to you, to a government, or lawmakers? How much return on investment do you get from this book? Trillions of dollars?

Note: I wrote this book in the English language, and it is the only reference when translated to other languages.

This message and education about freedom can be EXTREMELY THREATENING to many governments and INDIVIDUALS and OFFICIALS and other political and social groups. After reading my book, how much threat do you think many consider such an educational book, that mentions no one by name? Many oppressive governments and cultures and individuals or in many modern and rich and powerful governments and countries the individuals in it have interests that puts them in opposition to freedom, they dislike it for whatever personal reason. The one thing you should understand is that I am only one normal private citizen, facing all these pressures and threats that are uninvited. I have been attacked many times before, and my life has been made extremely difficult and dangerous, when I have not harmed or threatened anyone physically. They simply see my writings and speech as a major threat. So now, my situation has become horrible. If you feel these writings are good values, even for the uneducated who hate such writings, and you can help me survive all these opposing powers and interests, then help. I need your help. Just make sure you have straight hair, and not from Jews or Muslims or poorly educated Christians, because that is a personal issue as to who I want help from, and only if you agree with the book 100%. Send help to paypal account:

Please put the amount of donation in the "Price" field on the next page after you click the Donate Button. Thank you.

Imagine a congressman or bunch of them or a parliament saying: We can do this in one day or few days or weeks. What are we waiting for?