New Discovery

“Can you elaborate?”

“Punishment and retaliation are natural reactions of a free will
environment that permit the consideration of striking the first blow because
it is the price man is willing to risk or pay for the satisfaction of certain
desires. But when they are removed so the knowledge that they no longer
exist becomes a condition of the environment, then the price he must
consider to strike the first blow of hurt – all others are justified – is
completely out of his reach because to do so he must choose an alternative
that is less satisfying which is impossible to do when an alternative offering
greater satisfaction is available. Could you derive satisfaction from
hurting someone knowing full well that should you follow through with this
unprovoked act, the person you are hurting would be compelled to turn the
other cheek?

As long
as man can pay a price for hurting others, his conscience will never be able
to control his desires if he wants something badly enough. But when all
blame is removed from the environment, and he knows that he will not be
blamed by anyone anywhere, he will be compelled to change his ways.
Remember, everyone is constantly moving in the direction of greater
satisfaction and when striking a first blow becomes the worst possible
choice, our problem is solved because it will give us less satisfaction, not
more.

The answer to this impasse which removes the implications is now very
obvious because the advance knowledge that man will not be blamed for
anything he desires to do (this is the solution worked backwards),
mathematically prevents those very acts for which blame and punishment
were previously necessary.

Instead of being able to absolve one’s
conscience by justifying an act of crime or some other form of hurt because
of the knowledge that he will be blamed and punished (which permitted
efforts to shift his responsibility while encouraging what had to be criticized
and condemned), one is prevented from deriving any satisfaction from the
contemplation of this hurt by the realization that he will never be blamed,
criticized, punished or judged for doing what he knows everyone must
condone, while being denied a satisfactory reason with which to excuse his
contemplated conduct.

To paraphrase this in slightly different words:
Instead of being able to absolve one’s conscience by being given the
opportunity to justify an act of crime or some other form of hurt which
permitted the shifting of one’s responsibility while at the same time
encouraging the crime, the knowledge that will is not free and what this
means actually prevents an individual from deriving any satisfaction from
the contemplation of this hurt to another by the realization that he will not
be blamed, criticized, judged, or punished for this act.

The difference
between this principle and the one Christ preached – “Turn the other
cheek”, is that in the two-sided equation the first cheek is prevented from
being struck whereas Ghandi, in his bid for freedom and his belief in
nonviolence, was forced to turn the other cheek although the first cheek was
struck over and over again which took an untold number of lives.

Secondly,
man must be willing to die in order for turning the other cheek to be
effective, consequently innumerable abuses cannot be prevented which
starts a chain reaction of retaliation. Besides, how is it possible not to strike
back when your very being moves in this direction for satisfaction? Ghandi
said, “Kill us all or give us our freedom; we will not resist anything you do
to us”, compelling those in power, after many were already slain, to find
more satisfaction in leaving them alone. Many minorities, such as the
Blacks, cannot apply this psychology because the situation does not call for
such a sacrifice. How are these people to turn the other cheek when they
are underpaid, overtaxed, and judged by Whites as one of the inferior races?
It has been their effort to correct these abuses – not by turning the other
cheek – that has brought these people this far.

By turning the other cheek
(which also proves in a mathematical manner that man’s will is not free), it
absolutely prevents the second cheek from being struck because it is
impossible, as the people of India demonstrated, to get satisfaction from
continuing to hurt those who refuse to fight back, but as history has shown
many were killed just by being struck on the first cheek. My imparting the
knowledge that no one will again blame you in any way, judge your actions
or tell you what to do will mathematically prevent your first cheek from
being struck which is necessary in a world of atomic energy when an entire
nation can be wiped out from being struck on the first cheek. Let us once
again observe what the perception of undeniable relations tells us.

At this moment of time in our present world of free will you are trying
to decide whether to hurt me in some way but you have had everything
removed that could be used to justify this act. You simply see an
opportunity to gain at my expense, but should you decide against it you will
not be a loser. In other words, you are considering the first blow which
means that you are planning to do something to me that I do not want done
to myself. You realize that there is a certain risk involved, if caught,
because you must face the consequences. If the crime, misdemeanor or
offense is not that serious, although you know you will be questioned and
blamed, you may be able to get away with it by offering all kinds of
reasonable excuses as to why you had no choice. But if no excuse is
acceptable as in a court of law after you have been found guilty, or when
your parents, boss or others know you are obviously at fault, you could be
sent to prison, electrocuted, hanged, gassed, whipped, severely punished in
some other way, scolded, reprimanded, ostracized, criticized, discharged,
beat up or any number of things. You don’t want this to happen if it can be
avoided, but if you can’t satisfy your desire unless the risk is taken, you are
prepared to pay a price for the crime of hurting me with a first blow.

Under
these conditions it is impossible for your conscience to exercise any control
over your desires because you cannot feel any guilt just as long as you are
prepared to suffer the consequences. Now let us imagine for a moment that
we are living in the new world and you are about to make a decision,
whether to hurt me or not to hurt me.

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: “How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment.”

I suspect this is the crucial mistake the writer makes. Man does not have “absolute control” over his mind, as both he and his mind are subject to influences, conditions, - they are both deterministic. If man has any influence over his mind, he is only one - determined - factor among others determining it.

As before you are trying to decide whether to hurt me in some way but
you have had everything removed from which you might have been able to
justify your act. You simply see an opportunity to gain at my expense, but
you will not be a loser if you decide against it. In other words, you are
contemplating the first blow under changed conditions. You know as a
matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing in this world has the power,
that no one can compel you to do anything against your will, for over this
you know you have absolute control (you can lead a horse to water but you
can’t make him drink). This means that you are completely responsible for
your actions even though, due to circumstances, you may prefer hurting me.

To make absolutely certain that you know this is an undeniable law, try to
shift away from yourself what is your responsibility or to some extraneous
factor when you know that no one in the world will ever hold you
responsible. It cannot be done, which was already proven. This does not
mean that other people are not often responsible for the hurt we do as part
of a chain reaction as when an employer is forced to lay off his employees
because the money to pay them has stopped coming in to him, but no one is
blaming him for what is obviously not his responsibility and therefore it
isn’t necessary for him to offer excuses.

As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know as a matter of
positive knowledge that you cannot be blamed anymore because it is an
undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is a very unique two-sided
equation for it reveals that while you know you are completely responsible
for everything you do to hurt me, I know you are not responsible. For the
very first time you fully realize that I must excuse you because it is now
known that man must always select of available alternatives the one that
offers greater satisfaction, and who am I to know what gives you greater
satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize that should you
desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever you must also take into
consideration the knowledge that under no conditions will I strike you back
because it can never satisfy me to hurt you for doing what I know you are
compelled to do. This prevents you from thinking excuses in advance
because you know you are already excused. You cannot say, “I couldn’t
help myself because my will is not free”, because you know I already know
this. You cannot apologize or ask for forgiveness because you are already
forgiven and no one is blaming you. This means that should you decide to
hurt me with this first blow or be careless and take the risks that lead to a
first blow and I would have to choose between retaliating or turning the
other cheek, you would know that I would be compelled by my nature to
find greater satisfaction in turning the other cheek because of the undeniable
fact that I would know you had no choice, since your will is not free.
Remember, you haven’t hurt me yet; consequently, this is still a choice
under consideration.

And when it fully dawns on you that this hurt to me will never be
blamed, judged or questioned in any way because I don’t want to hurt you
in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your
control – ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR
CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN FORCE YOU TO
HURT ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO – you are compelled, completely of
your own free will, to relinquish this desire to hurt me with a first blow
because it can never give you greater satisfaction under the changed
conditions. [Note: It must be understood that the expression ‘of your own
free will’, which is an expression I use throughout the book only means ‘of
your own desire because you want to’, which is a true statement. If you are
still confused, please reread pages 57-61]. It becomes the worst possible
choice to hurt someone when it is known in advance that you are not going
to be blamed because there is no advantage in hurting those who you know
must turn the other cheek for their satisfaction. Conscience, your guilty
feeling over such an act will not permit it because you will get less
satisfaction, not more. If man’s will was free we could not accomplish this
because we would be able to choose what is less satisfying when something
more satisfying is available.

The knowledge that man will no longer be blamed for striking a first
blow since his will is not free – when he knows that nobody, absolutely
nothing can compel him to hurt someone this way unless he wants to, for
over this he knows he has absolute control – enters a condition or catalyst
never before a permanent factor in human relations and mathematically
prevents those very acts of hurt for which blame was previously necessary
in a free will environment. Remember, it takes two to tango – each person
and the rest of mankind – therefore this discovery which prevents man from
desiring to hurt others is only effective when he knows in advance, as a
matter of positive knowledge, that he will never be blamed or punished no
matter what he does. By following the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame,
which will act as an infallible slide rule and standard as to what is right and
wrong while solving the many problems that lie ahead, we will be obeying
the mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no choice when
we see what is truly better for ourselves. Consequently, by removing all
forms of blame which includes this judging in advance of what is right and
wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice from being
struck.

This corollary is not only effective by your realization that we (all
mankind) will never blame you for any hurt done to us but also by our
realization that any advance blame, this judging of what is right for
someone else strikes the first blow since it is impossible to prevent your
desire to hurt us by telling you we will never blame this hurt, when we
blame the possibility by telling you in advance that it is wrong. In other
words, by judging that it is wrong to do something, whatever it may be, we
are blaming the possibility of it being done which only incites a desire to
challenge the authority of this advance accusation that has already given
justification. Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want
which hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right
for someone else.

As we end this chapter there is one vital point that appears contradictory
and needs clarification. If the knowledge that man’s will is not free is
supposed to prevent that for which blame and punishment were previously
necessary, and if a person who saw his child deliberately kidnapped and
killed would be compelled to desire revenge as a normal reaction in the
direction of satisfaction, how can this knowledge prevent some form of
retaliation? Just because you have learned that man’s will is not free is not
a sufficient explanation as to why you should not want to avenge this
child’s murder by tracking down the criminal and cutting his heart out with
a knife, so once again we must understand what God means when He
mathematically instructs us not to blame. When the knowledge in this book
is released and understood, every person as always will be standing on this
moment of time or life called here, so to speak, and preparing to move to
the next spot called there.

As the principles set forth in this book become a
permanent part of the environment (more will be explained in the economic
chapter) you will know that the person who kidnapped and killed your child
or committed some other form of hurt which occurred prior to the release of
this knowledge – regardless of how much you hate and despise what was
done – will never blame in any way your desire for retribution, which
means that he will never run and hide to avoid your act of revenge because
this is a form of tacit blame; and when it fully dawns on you that he will
never make any effort to fight back no matter what you do to him, never lift
a hand to stop whatever you desire to do, it becomes impossible for you to
derive any satisfaction from this act of retaliation especially when you know
that he will never again be permitted by his conscience – because of the
realization that he will not be blamed – to do to another what was originally
done to you and your family. As a result, the chain of retaliation will be
broken which will prevent any further criminal behavior.

Time and time again a person desiring personal revenge has been able to
experience a certain amount of control over his desire, but never to the
degree that will permit this Great Transition to get underway – with the help
of our slide rule. When he fully realizes that the perpetrator whom he
wishes to hurt in return will never desire to retaliate with further hurt, or
desire to commit another crime to anyone anywhere, he is compelled to lose
his desire for revenge because it is impossible to derive any satisfaction
from the advance knowledge that he will be excused by the entire world.
The full realization that he can no longer justify this act of personal revenge
because no one will consider it wrong or tell him what to do (remember, no
longer will anyone judge what is right for another); that he will be able to
do what he wishes to this person without any form of justification because
he knows in advance that he will not be blamed and that everyone,
including the one to be retaliated upon, will be compelled of their own free
will to completely excuse what is definitely not his responsibility –
ALTHOUGH HE KNOWS IT WOULD BE HIS RESPONSIBILITY –
makes him desire to forgo what he knows he doesn’t have to do.

He knows
he is not under any compulsion to do what has not yet been done and when
he becomes aware that no one henceforth will judge his actions, that he is
completely free from the trammels of public opinion to do, without the
slightest fear of criticism, whatever he thinks is better for himself, that he
will not even be punished by the laws that were created for this purpose, it
becomes mathematically impossible for him to desire hurting this other
person under these conditions regardless of what was originally done to
him. It would be equivalent to deriving satisfaction from continuing to beat
up an individual who, though fully able to fight back, refuses to lift a hand
in his own defense. This allows the Great Transition to get underway, as
you will see in greater detail as we proceed, without any fear of harm. Let
us observe why the perpetrator can no longer continue his crime spree under
the changed conditions.

The potential kidnapper or criminal who is standing on this moment of
time called here when this knowledge is released and before the act is done,
is prevented from further contemplation of his crime by the realization that
he will never be blamed, judged, criticized, or punished for this act (and by
the removal of all forms of tacit blame which unconsciously gave him the
motivation and justification), which compels him to get greater satisfaction
in his motion to there by giving up what he was contemplating.

Up until the
present time there was nothing powerful enough to prevent man from
risking his life to satisfy a desire regardless of who got hurt because the
satisfaction of possible success outweighed the dissatisfaction of possible
failure; but when he becomes conscious that a particular reaction of no
blame will be the only response to his actions by the entire world regardless
of what he is contemplating, he will be compelled, completely beyond his
control but of his own free will (or desire), to refrain from what he now
foresees can give him absolutely no satisfaction. How can he possibly find
satisfaction in doing something that the world must excuse, but he can no
longer justify? This natural law of man’s nature gives him no alternative
but to obey it in order to derive greater satisfaction, and will prevent the
first blow from ever being struck. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall
Not Blame, we will be able to unravel the causes of war, crime, and hatred,
which are deep-rooted and interwoven, and envision how life will be when
all hurt in human relations comes to a permanent end.

There will be many volumes extending this law into every area of
human relation. The answer to the world’s problems will satisfy
Communism and Capitalism, the Blacks and the Whites, the Jews and the
Christians, the Catholics and the Protestants, the rich and the poor, the cops
and the robbers. However, it must be understood that in the world of free
will innumerable wars, revolutions, and crimes were a reaction to various
forms of hurt which did not allow any alternative but to retaliate.
Consequently, man was compelled to blame, criticize and punish as the
only possible alternative when judged by his undeveloped mind. When
those about to fight back discover that they will no more be retaliated upon,
it is also necessary for them to realize that the factors responsible for this
consideration of war and crime, as the lesser of two evils, will also be
removed; and are those responsible given any choice but to remove these
factors when they know that those who they have been hurting will never
blame them for this?

To fully understand the fact that conscience – our
feeling of guilt – was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature
necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it
is only necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is
constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate. It was impossible
for any previous stage of our development to have understood the deeper
factors involved which was necessary for an adequate solution, just as it
was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at an earlier time
because the deeper relations were not perceived at that stage of
development; but at last we have been granted understanding which reveals
a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in every way with the
mathematical accuracy of the solar system, and we are in for the greatest
series of beneficent changes of our entire existence which must come about
as a matter of necessity the very moment this knowledge is understood.

Although this book only scratches the surface, it lays the foundation for
scientists to take over from here. The undeniable knowledge I am
presenting is a blueprint of a new world that must come about once this
discovery is recognized, and your awareness of this will preclude you from
expressing that this work is oversimplified. Because it would take many
encyclopedias combined to delineate all of the changes about to occur, it
would have been much too long for a book that was written for the express
purpose of providing mankind with a general outline. It will be up to future
scientists to extend this scientific principle in much greater depth.

As we leave this chapter I hope I have made it clear that just as long as
man is able to justify hurting others, he is not striking a first blow. Before I
demonstrate how this justification is permanently removed by preventing
the insecurities that have permeated our economic system and justify the act
of self-preservation by whatever means necessary, I will allow you an
opportunity to see exactly what happens in a human relation where this
justification is already removed. In the next chapter, l shall reveal how all
automobile accidents and carelessness must come to a permanent end.
Before we move on, I must clarify a very important point. Christ and
Spinoza turned the other cheek and paid the consequences because the
justification to hurt them was never removed, but I am going to demonstrate
how it is now possible to prevent the first cheek from being struck which
renders obsolete the need to turn the other cheek or retaliate. Although
Ghandi won freedom for his people and Reverend King won certain civil
rights, they accomplished this at great expense. However, all was necessary
because we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction over which
we have no control because this is God’s law or will. At this point, I
suggest that you study carefully, once again, Chapter Two and then discuss
it to make certain you understand that if you find any flaw it exists only in
your not understanding the principles, for they are undeniable.

Just as I thought: a complete misunderstanding of the will:

Translation: if the will arises in me, i.e., if “I” (there is no subject) become a vehicle of the will to hurt “you” (i.e., to change the physical (including cerebral) configuration of the cluster of impressions I refer to as “you”), “I” (who am also just such a cluster of impressions) am supposed to have “mathematical control” over this will (or the exercise of this will - which cannot really be distinguished from it)? I think not: the will is a vector (really the resultant of innumerable vectors) of force; whatever would control this would then also have to be a vector of force, and the resultant would be yet another vector of force.

First, it is not a “decision” to hurt you, but an overwhelming passion (the will to power is a pathos). Secondly, this whole “discovery” is due to a confused idea of what “I” am: am “I” an entity somehow separate from my body (in which the will to hurt you arises), which can coolly and detachedly contemplate on whether to allow this will to be exercised or no? And if it is thusly separate, how can it exercise control over my body? This dualism leads to muddled formulations like the following:

I am neither compelled, nor do I have free will: I am a bundle of force vectors whose resultant we call “my will”.

There are many factors that ‘cause’ someone to do what he does. I am in agreement with you. What the author means when he says man has absolute control is that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. This was said to distinguish the idea that something else is responsible for man’s actions. In other words, if I hit you with a stick I am responsible. I am the one that did it, regardless of the factors that led up to the act.

I think the concept of justification belongs in a world of culpability: otherwise what does it matter if something is “not justified”?

Secondly, I don’t consider the will to self-preservation to be the cardinal drive, but the will to power. “Satisfaction” is simply the feeling of power. If it gives me a greater feeling of power to hurt you then not to hurt you, I should do the former.

This makes no sense to me. That he does not need to shift responsibility I understand, as there is no responsibility. But why should he not be able to live with himself? What should he care about another’s pain?

Neither something else is responsible for man’s actions, nor man himself. You are neither compelled to hit me with a stick nor do you have a choice to do so.

“How can we tell the dancer from the dance?”
[Yeats, Among School Children.]

Let’s carefully dissect the wording. Maybe you can help me clarify it for the reader because you are asking very pertinent questions and that’s the only way I will get better at explaining it.
[/quote]
First, it is not a “decision” to hurt you, but an overwhelming passion (the will to power is a pathos).

There are definite vectors (as you call them) that are guiding us toward the choices we make, but this does not mean that we don’t have control. In the new world, you won’t be able to use this as an excuse as to why you had to do hurt someone because no one will be blaming you. I want to complete the last chapter for today, as this will give you a better understanding as to how this principle works in real life.
[/quote]

Ho ho ho, I never said anything about retaliation. My will to hurt you need not be roused by resentment at all (it may be a “first blow”).

This “resisting” would simply be another impulse - the will to save his family. The outcome would depend on the strength of the various impulses.

I think it does. What do you mean by “we”?

Exactly, but this doesn’t mean I won’t do it.

The only way we can do this is to remove all first blows which give rise to a desire for retaliation. When there is nothing hurting us then the desire to hit you with a stick can no longer be justified. That is why this principle must work on a worldwide scale which means that economic insecurity is a first blow and must be removed before this world can become a reality.

CHAPTER THREE

THE END OF CARELESSNESS

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we never had to worry about people

carelessly risking the lives of our loved ones, neighbors, and
friends? Well, get ready for a miracle. I shall demonstrate, by
applying this natural law, how it is now possible to change our environment
and raise man’s conscience to such a degree that all carelessness, including
automobile accidents, will be virtually wiped from the face of the earth
because people the world over will do everything in their power to avoid the
carelessness and risks responsible. Right now there are more people killed
in automobile accidents than we can fully comprehend. These collisions
take place only because man operates on 75% of his potential power which
is insufficient to prevent what nobody wants, even though he is doing
everything in his power to prevent it. By understanding what it means that
man’s will is not free we plug in the extra 25%, and then have the power to
prevent the unintentional tragedies that continue to plague our lives.

Carelessness, just as the word implies is an ‘I do not care’ attitude. It
arises from several factors. There are young boys and girls who want to
make an impression on their friends and this requires that they demonstrate
their ability to handle a car like a race car driver, but they never give much
thought to the other person because man’s first concern has always been for
himself. The show-off wants to give his friends a thrill and demonstrate
how to do what really takes guts. He doesn’t care if he is a menace to other
drivers who happen to cross his path. If he is willing to risk his own life –
and happens to take others with him – that’s their tough luck. For this
reason you would often hear, ‘Drive carefully; the life you save might be
your own.’ The drunks and dope addicts and people in a hurry cannot stand
being behind a slow moving vehicle even if this means passing on a curve
or hill. They either don’t fully realize the danger or they don’t care, since
the risk is primarily to them with no thought of those who may be in the
way.

There are those who don’t care because this requires great effort and
they aren’t willing to exert the kind of energy it takes to protect the lives of
others. To apply brakes when the light changes yellow as an alternative to
speeding up and making it so stopping isn’t necessary is considered a
nuisance. As a result, they often end up going through on the red and
crashing into the driver who starts off before the light has changed to green.

Then there is the mother who is so fed up with the struggle to take care of
the house and her children, and now that she is no longer in love with her
husband she just doesn’t care. She leaves matches and other potentially
dangerous items lying around and when the house catches on fire or they
get hurt in some other way she always comes up with excuses. What has
added to her carelessness is that she never understood the meaning of
fatalism which is the belief that whatever happens is determined by fate and
beyond one’s control. Consequently, when this belief in fatalism was
expressed to me by a mother who didn’t seem to take much care in looking
after her children, I asked her the following question:

“If you saw your infant getting ready to crawl in front of a truck, would
you pick him up or let him go?”

“Naturally, I would grab him.”

“Why would you grab him, if you believe in fate?”

“I can see that danger,” she replied.

“In other words,” I responded, “once you have done everything in your
power to prevent an accident and then it occurs, you can say it was fate.”

Carelessness has allowed airplanes to crash into each other or to explode
because the mechanics failed in their duty. It has allowed ships to ram each
other, hotels, night clubs, houses, etc. to burst into flames and people to
perish. It has allowed tires to blow out and brakes to fail; even buildings to
collapse. There is no telling how many lives have been lost or mutilated
(blinded, crippled or what have you) all because of someone’s carelessness.
And liability insurance came into existence out of absolute necessity to help
prevent the aftereffects of an accident; otherwise we would have more
killing.

My friend remarked, “I don’t know about you guys but if it had not been
for my ability to drive defensively, I would have been killed or hospitalized
at least a dozen times. I agree that defensive driving is extremely important
in this world, that is. I don’t know about the new world, but not everybody
has this coordination and skill to drive defensively, just as they don’t have
other talents and skills.”

“You’re right; however, everybody does have the ability to apply the
rules of good driving. Now observe how God compels this to come about.”

When a car accident occurs in our present environment the people
involved are very dissatisfied because their car was just damaged, but what
do they do for satisfaction? If there were no witnesses they hurl accusations
at each other until the police arrive. The person who did not have the right-
of-way could possibly, in a courtroom with a clever lawyer, make the
innocent party appear guilty, in order to get his insurance company to pay
for damages. If the one who had the right-of-way was under the influence
of liquor, even though the accident was not his fault in any way, he is
already judged guilty as this offers a perfect reason for making the guilty
party appear innocent. But when an extremely serious accident occurs
where, let us say, two children and their mother were instantly killed, while
the father and the other driver were thrown clear, to assume responsibility
for this is too horrible to bear which compels them to think up a million and
one excuses as to why it was the other person’s fault.

If there were
witnesses, and both drivers know it was not the father’s responsibility, the
guilty party would welcome whatever punishment could be dished out so
that he could pay dearly for what he did; and the liability insurance
he carries just in case, helps him, in a small way to pay part of the price. If
it was the father’s fault, he might not be able to stand this terrible feeling of
guilt that he caused the death of his loved ones, and might be forced to find
some reason as to why this accident was unavoidable otherwise he could
kill himself. However, to make it possible for him to continue living, just in
case he can’t come up with a convincing reason for the accident, the law
will charge him with manslaughter and he will have to serve a prison
sentence, which he welcomes, because this also helps him to pay for what
he did. How many times, true or false, will the ability to use just these
words make someone feel so much better – “I couldn’t help myself. It was
not my fault. It was unavoidable. I’m terribly sorry.” And how many
times in the course of history have the innocent been compelled to pay the
price of the guilty, just because man was able to shift his responsibility?

To understand why all automobile accidents must come to an end, out of
absolute necessity, watch what happens when we apply our basic principle
to show you exactly what takes place in our present environment before and
after a collision, and then let you see the same accident under changed
conditions. Most people are concerned with their own safety, but under the
changed conditions they become more concerned that they are not
responsible for hurting others as that alternative which gives them greater
satisfaction. Remember, however, the new world is not yet here so we are
going to imagine the same accident which will not occur, just so we can see
why it will not. Actually, the only reason we are willing to drive carelessly
and take risks in our present environment is because when we do have an
accident, which means that when we have made a careless mistake resulting
in a hurt to others, it is possible to gain satisfaction by paying the price or
shifting responsibility. When it becomes impossible to do either, we must
do everything in our power to prevent the accident as that alternative which
is better for ourselves.

Not so long ago a truck was heading west inside the city limits, doing 50
miles an hour in a 35 mile zone. It was past midnight, and very few cars
were on the street. The driver was anxious to get home because he hadn’t
seen his family for a week. He had driven this same route many times and
knew it was safe to go this speed at that time of the morning. His only
concern was to keep an eye out for a patrol car so he wouldn’t get a ticket.

Up ahead, four blocks away, he saw that a traffic signal was green when
about a half block away he knew that it would soon be joined with the
yellow light and followed in a few seconds by the red, indicating that he
would have to stop. Because he felt this was a nuisance, since the amber
light had not yet gone on and since the darkness enabled him to see that no
headlights were coming from other directions, he felt safe to increase his
speed to 65 miles an hour.

Heading north was a car carrying five people – a father, mother, and
their three children. They had just attended a wedding and were on their
way home. The father had been drinking rather heavily and completely
forgot to put on his headlights. He was also traveling along at 50 miles an
hour when he slowed down to 35 so he wouldn’t have to stop for the red
light up ahead, but when he saw the yellow light go on for the other
direction, and knowing that the light would be green before he entered the
intersection even if he resumed his 50 miles an hour, he did not hesitate to
do just that. Now just before the truck got to the crossing the light changed,
which meant that the driver would have to go through on the red. At that
very moment he saw the car without any headlights on enter the intersection
a fraction of a second ahead of him, but it was too late to avoid the
collision. The father saw the truck at that instant too. They both jammed
on their brakes and turned their wheels instinctively, but the truck ploughed
head on at a slight angle into the rear right side of the car. The parents were
somehow only injured slightly; the truck driver was not hurt at all, but the
three children were killed instantly. Standing on the corner was someone
who noticed that the car’s lights were not on. Now let us analyze this.

If the truck driver had any inkling that such an accident would have
resulted from his trying to beat the light he certainly would never have
considered it, but he chose to do what he did because it gave him greater
satisfaction at that moment. However, we are not concerned now with what
he should or should not have done but what he must do for greater
satisfaction following the accident. It is obvious that he feels absolutely
terrible over what he knows was his fault, yet he does not want to be
blamed for the death of these children. There is certainly no satisfaction in
feeling the weight of this responsibility; consequently, he is going to do
everything in his power to shift it away from himself. The police arrive and
learn that the father was driving without headlights on and that he was
highly intoxicated. The truck driver kept saying over and over again – “It
was not my fault. That man went right through the red light and didn’t even
have his lights on. The death of those children is horrible, but it was not my
fault!” Before long he was absolutely convinced that the accident would
never have occurred had the headlights been on, and he was right because
what made him speed up to beat the yellow light was his certainty that no
car was coming. However, he could not tell the police the truth, that the
right-of-way still belonged to the father even though intoxicated and
without lights – although it made him feel as if it was not his responsibility.

In court the father was found guilty of manslaughter even though he was
innocent, which infuriated him. But because the deaths of his children were
considered punishment enough, his sentence was suspended and he was
placed on probation. His wife, however, was not satisfied with the decision
since she believed him guilty of killing their children (she had warned him
time and again about his drinking at parties), and filed for divorce. The
truck driver was awarded quite a bit of money in damages because he
discovered that he was not physically the same after such a traumatic
experience. Had the conditions been slightly different making it impossible
for the truck driver to shift his responsibility, the only avenue open for
greater satisfaction would have been for him to pay a heavy price for what
he did. His insurance would have compensated the parents to a degree for
their tragic loss and they would have been satisfied to know that he was sent
to prison. When released he would feel that he paid his debt to society and
the family, and his conscience would be cleared. If he felt the least big
guilty for killing these children he could always confess this sin to a priest
or psychiatrist, or atone for it in various ways.

The father, on the other
hand, who was found guilty although he was completely innocent has built
up a tremendous hate for the entire system of justice and may desire to kill
the truck driver in retaliation if he thinks he can get away with it. His life
has been ruined and he wants to hurt somebody in the worst way for what
was done to him. Had this accident not taken anyone’s life, the driver of
the truck might have volunteered that it was his fault so his insurance
company could reimburse them for property damage. This could help
compensate in some small way for what happened. Now pay close
attention to the same accident under changed conditions so you can see why
the truck driver when faced with the choice of speeding up or slowing down
is compelled to prefer the latter – which avoids the tragedy. Let’s see how
the truck driver is making out.

The truck driver feels absolutely horrible over what he knows was his
responsibility, but he also knows that no one in the entire world will ever
blame him for what was done. People standing around are shocked over the
sight. The father and mother are weeping bitterly over the loss of their
children but they will not say to the truck driver – “Look at what you just
did!” The police are not going to smell his breath or give him other tests,
because there are no more police. There are no prosecutors who are going
to try and prove his guilt in a court of law. There is no more liability
insurance to help pay a price for hurting others. An ambulance arrives to
carry off the dead, and tow trucks to clean up the debris. But let us take a
long look at the truck driver to see how he is making out.

He knows beyond a shadow of doubt that the accident was his
responsibility because the father entered the intersection on the green light.
He can’t say to the police or the parents that it was not his fault, because
they are not going to blame him in any way. They must excuse him since it
is now known that his will is not free, which means that he couldn’t help
himself. He is prevented from saying – “I couldn’t help myself; it was not
my fault; it was unavoidable”, because no one is blaming him. But he
knows, before something happens, that he doesn’t have to do what causes
accidents through carelessness, unless he wants to, for over this he also
knows he has absolute control. And when it fully dawns on him that the
parents must excuse what he cannot justify because he knows he was to
blame (the two-sided equation); when he fully realizes that he cannot shift
his responsibility in any direction whatsoever because nobody is holding
him responsible, and that he cannot pay a price for the same reason, he
finds himself in a situation from which it is impossible to derive any
satisfaction whatsoever. How do you think he feels? Wouldn’t it be
wonderful for him if he was punished or could in some way pay for what he
did? He would like to be blamed, criticized, condemned, punished, beat up
by the father and hated, but he knows these things will never take place
because nobody alive holds him responsible, which compels him to hold
himself responsible. He would like to write a check to compensate the
family for any economic loss, but nobody is suing him. He finds himself in
an unbearable situation and will be compelled to go through life with the
death of these children, the sorrow of the parents, and the destruction of
their property, on his conscience.

“But supposing it really was the father’s fault? What if the father didn’t
see the truck at all and was not certain of what happened?

“Well, is anybody blaming the driver of the other car, so how would it
be possible for him to say – “It was not my fault but his?” And no matter
how unbearable it was for him to feel this responsibility, just imagine how
the father must feel to know that he was, or might have been, responsible
for the death of his loved ones, although this difference could hardly pass
through the eye of a needle.”

“I’m confused again. Why did you say ‘might have been responsible’?”

“If the father was even the slightest bit uncertain of what actually
happened, as long as he knows it might have been his fault, he will suffer
just as much as if he was certain because there is no way he can find out
when no one blames him. He might actually believe that his drinking was
responsible, that maybe it was the fact that he didn’t put on his lights or that
he went through the red light because he just didn’t see it. How do you
think he feels knowing that his carelessness might have caused the death of
his own children? How will he ever know that he was not responsible
unless he is fully aware at all times of what he is doing?”

This means that the very thought of hurting others through carelessness
is so terrifying when there will be no blame, punishment, or a price to be
paid for what we know is, or might have been, our responsibility, that when
we are confronted with a similar situation as the truck driver we could never
find greater satisfaction in speeding up, while the father knowing that
drinking might cause him to get in an accident figures out a way to solve his
problem so he can still drink without taking on the responsibility of driving.

If he has no one to drive his car but himself, and he feels that drinking
might cause an accident for which he knows well in advance there will be
no blame, he cannot afford the risk of placing himself in a position from
which his conscience will torture him the rest of his life. People know they
are not compelled to drink and drive, not compelled to pass on a curve or
hill, not compelled to recklessly show off and race unless they want to, for
over this they have mathematical control, and when it fully dawns on them
that should they hurt others with their carelessness they will not be blamed
or punished because everyone knows they were compelled to do what they
did – WHEN THEY KNOW THEY WERE NOT COMPELLED – they are
given no alternative but to do everything in their power to prevent a
situation from arising that gives them absolutely no satisfaction.

If the truck
driver was truly at fault, it would be very difficult to live with the fact that
people were severely injured or killed as a result of his carelessness, when
no one is blaming him for this. Bear in mind that if he had nothing to do
with the accident he would have no reason to feel remorse, but if he was not
certain whether his actions contributed in some way, he would have to live
with this uncertainty knowing that he might have been partly or completely
responsible. The only way a person would know for sure that he was not
responsible is to be aware at all times of what he is doing. Once all
mankind are taught what it means that man’s will is not free, they are
permitted to see, well in advance, a situation that is too horrible to
contemplate, consequently, the only avenue open for needed satisfaction is
to prevent it from arising because there is no way they can do anything
afterwards…under the changed conditions.

The only reason that accidents resulting from carelessness were able to
take place was because people could blame something else as the cause,
thereby shifting what was their responsibility; and liability insurance didn’t
help because those with ample coverage felt they were prepared to pay for
their negligence. This reasoning also explains why the ability to confess
one’s sins allows the confessional to be a place where the responsible party
can find the justification necessary to absolve his conscience. But when it
becomes mathematically impossible to blame someone or something else,
there is no way carelessness can be justified. Remember, if the person was
truly not responsible, his conscience would be clear. In the new world, the
victims involved in any kind of accident will assume the cost of the damage
done to them, which means that when they hold themselves responsible for
hurting others they must also hold themselves responsible for hurting the
victims of their carelessness all the more since the money they will have to
spend on a new or repaired car could have been used either by themselves
or the insurance company, for other things. If a person doesn’t have this
[no fault] insurance or sufficient cash reserve to cover his share of the
damage, then we, all the people, will pay the cost because we know this
person couldn’t help himself, that he was compelled to neglect taking out
this insurance, or else he couldn’t afford it. But when he will be guaranteed
his standard of living (this will be explained in the economic chapter), then
he will desire to carry this protection for fear that he will hurt others by
making them pay for damages that he should be sharing.

The right-of-way system in the new world becomes a mathematical
standard by which each motor vehicle operator is forced to judge only
himself. The truck driver knows he did not have the right-of-way;
consequently, he was aware he struck the first blow when the collision took
place. If he had gotten to the red light and no cars were coming, he would
not have been striking a first blow had he decided to cross the intersection.
By the same reasoning, his speed is no longer controlled by a patrol car
being present or absent but by what he considers safe enough so that he will
never have to enter another driver’s right-of-way. He cannot afford to drive
with bad tires or brakes because if the one should blow out and the other
fail forcing him to collide with other cars by entering their territory, he will
know that he struck the first blow. If the tires were new but the mechanic
failed to tighten the bolts on one wheel which fell off at high speed causing
the accident, his conscience would be clear since this was something that
happened to him as a part of a chain reaction. This is true regardless of
what type of transportation is involved.

When a plane crashes it is the responsibility of all those who have
anything to do with it – building, repairing, maintaining, piloting it, etc.,
consequently when these individuals know that they will never be blamed
for taking thousands of lives or putting those lives in jeopardy, they will
never allow a plane to go up until they are absolutely certain that no one
will be hurt. Everybody will be compelled to assume the responsibility of
hurting others in these plane crashes because the others will never blame
them for this hurt. The changed conditions will force every mechanic to be
extremely careful so that they are never responsible for accidents due to
their carelessness. Right now the mechanics, engineers, etc. are justified in
being careless because they know that somebody is going to blame
somebody else right down the line of command, but when they know that
nobody will ever blame anybody, they will all feel the weight of a
tremendous responsibility which compels them to ground a plane unless
they can feel absolutely certain they are not sending a group of people to
their death.

There will be no reason for airplanes to crash into each other
when pilot error will no longer be the cause. Furthermore, now that
airplanes can be electronically guided as to altitude and direction – and
other technological advancements are being developed that will detect
potential problems long before take-off – airline travel will be safer than
ever before. All engineers and mechanics who design and repair vehicles
that are used for public transportation will have no choice but to make
safety a number one priority.

In the private sector, driving a car, motorcycle, or any other type vehicle
will no longer be taken lightly, but will be considered a very serious
undertaking. For example, before desiring to drive a car in the new world
we will want to know everything that could possibly make us responsible
for hurting others in an accident which will then, never occur. It will also
prevent us from delaying other drivers from getting to their destination. If
by not using directional signals when required (which excludes having to
use signals when we are alone on the street or in a lane that only goes to the
right or left) or by not moving over far enough when making a turn we see
that we are holding up traffic for which we will not be blamed by the
honking of horns, we will soon find greater satisfaction in not doing those
things that interfere with the flow of traffic. By blowing horns in blame,
and by calling people names, we not only find justification to repeat that for
which we are prepared to pay for in terms of going to court, getting a ticket,
etc., but we get a certain satisfaction in irritating those whom we know will
criticize this annoying habit. When it becomes impossible to pay a price for
hurting or annoying others because there are no consequences, in other
words, when all justification for tying up traffic has been removed, we are
given no choice but to change our ways.

“I’m beginning to see the effect of this even in smaller accidents,
because the person who caused it is made to realize how much
inconvenience and trouble he puts people through who refuse to blame him
in any way for doing what he knows they must excuse, and he, for the very
first time, cannot justify.”