Conservator and Stewards

The Declaration of Independence is a contract, of the most important, and first of transactions. The establishment of a conservatorship.  Where a government would be desginated to secure an equality of ownership of rights amongst a people who combined are the consent of the governed in regards to their endowed unalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  How did this play out? Did that conservatorship remain intact and protect the interests of the incompetent that include all parties?  Was their planning for the research and development costs of an economic and legal environment that would keep the agreement intact. Was anyone in that time familiar with the concepts of research and development costs, insurances at that time? Do the stewards employed to conduct, supervise, and manage the resources, the protected assests; do so correctly or successfully to warrant no change?  Are the stewards adequately limited and regulated as creditors and far from having the higher ownership restricted by the second paragraph in one of the foundational contracts that established the United States.  The assets, economic interests, the governed, their rights entrusted;  what does true ownership of these assets entail?  Conservatorship is a theme we see in religious texts such as the Bible with Psalm 42 and Chronicles 1, 29, of what is all gods to be in our hands for the time being. The practice of law as a conservator for the disputes/rights of different parties. 

One way this great conservatorship still exists is as an equal power between the people.  Passed along to every individual, with every position. Whether your president, your a justice, judge, lawyer, accountant, soldier or more importantly, someone who is not one of these. Part of that great conservatorship was parted in some way to you.  Do not give it up.  Do not take someone elses.  Has everyone done their best to protect the equality of rights of life, liberty, and property?  If not, we still have a chance through the powers of our communication, intelligence, and experience.

Conservator is defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary as:

“1: One that preserves from injury or violation, one that is responsible for the care, resotration, and repair of archival or museum articles.

2: a person, official, or institution designated to take over and protect the interest of an incompetent.

3 : An official charged with the protection of something affecting public welfare and interests. “

Stewardship is defined as:

2: the conducting, supervising, or managing of something, especially the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.

A Steward

2: Shop steward,

3: A fiscal agent

4: an employee on a [vessel] who manages the provisioning of food and attends passengers

5: One appointed to supervise the provision and distribution of food and drink in an institution. “

Declaration of Independence

We hold this truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator wth certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the puruit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–

Put simply; the first line of the Declaration of independence states that equality of ownership of rights exists amongst people. Their rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, from the power that exists from the consent of the governed ownership was never transfered from the people to the government, the Articles of Confederation establishing the government came after.

How did we get so far from this big, beautiful idea? This actually big, beautiful idea that is in itself that way, and does not say it is a big beautiful idea, unless it were to attempt to lift it’s own soul up, to the status of an idol.

Accounting and the Conservatorship

The accounting equation is that assets are a sum of liabilities and equity.  Otherwise, the resources are a sum of the rights of creditors and the rights of owners. 

Who are the assets, what are the rights of owners, and what are the rights of the creditors?  Another way you can see this is who are the assets, conservators, and the stewards.  I would say the equality of ownership of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the governed and the governed themselves are the assets and owners. The owners’ rights are secured by the government, with the consent of the governed, an equal owning people. The creditor is anyone else.  That creditor can be anyone of the governed, or even a combination of different ones; one of the governed, an organization, a foreign government.  Why can creditors not be owners?  Their pursuit separates them from the governed. The paragraph names a government as the conservator, and ownership can not be separated, but the conservator can employ a steward. They can not do that. They would have to be the conservator, but they are not of the consent of the governed.

Why can they not be the conservator? Because the government or representation of equity would be responsible for representing the rights of the governed.  The ownership of the equal life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is closer to the conservator, less the steward. The conservator can employ a steward to manage part.  But, the conservator would have to oversee and review the performance of the steward. 

Are the companies paying to inform, regulate, research, or measure that they preserve that ownership remains equal amongst the people?  That life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are intact, and that law, health, and wealth are not used to circumvent, steal, reduce, inflate, or exchange away rights of the governed.

Ownership

How well do companies support education? Do they make sure to make jobs for every graduate. How many graduates are they responsible for? How do they determine that? Do they create reports of how they preserve the rights of the governed and their equality amongst them?  I studied accounting, and would say entities care about other things, including risks that they must disclose in certain circumstances, where pending regulation can be quantified. Think about that. Expansion of the government is a risk, and development of law is a risk!  Unless they are paying to create it, to expand their protections further than equal, and it is their assets along with what the government gave them to manage but can not owned.  If you pick and choose what you own, you can not be an owner.  That is why the government, with the consent of the governed, needs to always remain the larger party.  Any entity in a transaction with a government does not own the assets of the governed like the government would not own them so to give them away, but just to manage and should be reviewed as they are a manager, as they are an employee, as an economic steward.  The rights of the government to secure the rights of the governed. 

Human labor is often the costliest item, hence why it was advantageous for manufacturing to not be in the United States. To take advantage of where people have fewer rights and less equality.  Did companies create public education so you could work safer? No, Horace Mann, an 18th century statesman from Massachusetts, pursued that literacy or education be available to all those governed despite class.  Do not worry, though. The companies will pay to create the technical literature. What good is that to someone who can not read?  What good is a billionaire’s underground bunker to those who can not fit in it.

Who would keep the economy in line that your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are best preserved while others pursue theirs?  If the government does not enact laws and does not have the power to enforce them, then it can fail in it’s main purpose to protect the ownership of the people, which can not be transferred away.  As has been attempted for some time.  Ownership and the right against self incrimination are both given; which can be abused together.  So, how do we prevent fraud and failure when we can not agree that morality is not relative between an organization which is part of the governed but insisting to be the owner, but only of what it wishes to own, not of whatever it does not want to own in regards to what has been secured by a conservatorship?

Capitalism and Socialism

The difference between capitalism and socialism in this transaction is that capitalists want the creditor’s to have more right, because they would be part of the creditors based on ownership as established in the Constitution. Rather; capitalists believe they should be the owners because they are exposing themselves to their risks even though risks are heavily mitigated in their favor and the governed experience most of the risks.  Impacts to the environment, the court system, to inflation, to local economies are some of many.  Do not ask them if they fail to preserve the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others along the way of expanding their own.  That is the Declaration of Independence’s problem to figure out, apparently.   If they manipulate the legal environment, the money supply, the economy, if they move the world for their interest; talk to god and the government about the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others. 

Socialism would say ownership rights belong to the people, and even the government would not be the owner but an intermediary between a creditor.  Every business would be the same, another creditor, the stronger creditor, fine; but the governed, the owner.  I will remind you as it was in the initial transaction, before the legal environment was abused to circumvent the conservatorship to defraud it of the assets in reference, where ownership of those assets would not allow onwership to be transferred. 

What is a good economic steward?

Not anyone around now. Our system was built to favor capitalists, and so most of the people now are capitalists. Who works with organizations to measure horizontal equity, and makes commitments to strengthen horizontal equity.  Can any one person be competent enough to be an economic steward.  Where they would respect the conservatorship that was established, where not only the company is impacted positively but everyone impacted by the economy?   No, I do not think so. I do not think so. Who mentioned this flaw in ownership prior?  Not those who would use the system to secure the part that they say would belong to them. At this time, I can not tell you what a competent economic steward will look like.

Faw V Marstellar, Supreme Court

In a volume of cases from the United States Senate, we can read in page 23-26 of Faw v Marstellar regarding debts, rents, depreciated currency, and contracts. It was mentioned that paper currency was not expected to last forever.  We read some of the earliest languages regarding interminable contracts and the separation of debts from contracts.  An example of a debt of rents unpaid for 1000 years or a day is as impossible to pay as the date the contract was made. 

A contract is defined as such one that may be fulfilled, thereby implying now remaining unfulfilled.  Then they mention, where they insist the parties made a contract that would far out live the existence of currency.  How an increase in rent was to offset the depreciation in currency. Why do the people have the right to not ask this of the wealthy? Of the corporate class? To ask for compensation from depreciated, depleted trading material that is there from an entity that is not an individual.  The power, the consent of the governed can ask for additional rent for a businesses stay at the frontier of the economic responsibility and to assure it remains a good steward not for right consolidation as they are, but for right distribution. Which is the main prerogative of the higher contract, maintaining equal ownership of those unalienable rights, the only responsibility the government can contract for, based on the first designation from the Declaration of Independence.  Faw VMarstellar continues as It explains that no rent exists prior to enjoyment, that rent becomes due after each round of enjoyment. Perhaps the protections of property could be rolled back for businesses because the accrual of their enjoyment of that position may not longer be right if they are not the best economic steward.